User login
AGA Defines Diagnostic, Treatment Approach to Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
.
CHS, which is triggered by chronic cannabis usage and manifests with GI and autonomic symptoms, is on the rise in the United States, yet underdiagnosis remains a challenge and clinical data are scarce, reported lead update panelist Alberto Rubio Tapia, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues.
“Although cannabis use has been reported for many decades, some of its unique adverse effects of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, termed CHS, were noted relatively recently,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “The objective of this article was to help practitioners define the appropriate approach to the diagnosis and management of CHS.”
According to the update, the typical CHS patient is male with a years-long history of daily or near-daily cannabis use. Paradoxically, while cannabis use drives this condition, some patients with CHS report that cannabis use relieves their symptoms.The update describes CHS as a subtype of cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS), and offers diagnostic criteria for CHS, reproduced below verbatim:
- Clinical features: stereotypical episodic vomiting resembling CVS in terms of onset, with frequency 3 or more times annually;
- Cannabis use patterns: duration of cannabis use more than 1 year before symptom onset; frequency more than 4 times per week, on average;
- Cannabis cessation: resolution of symptoms after a period of abstinence from cannabis use for at least 6 months, or at least equal to the total duration of 3 typical vomiting cycles in that patient.
As CHS is a subtype of CVS, the update also provides an outline and management guide for this broader condition, which is characterized by four phases: inter-episodic, prodromal, emetic, and recovery.
During the inter-episodic phase, patients will have minimal or no symptoms, although almost one third will describe dyspepsia or nausea. Prophylactic medications in this period include tricyclics, mitochondrial supplements like CoQ10 and vitamin B12, NK1 antagonists, and anticonvulsants.
The prodromal phase is characterized by abdominal pain and nausea with a duration of 30-90 minutes. During this time patients may have autonomic symptoms like sweating and feeling hot or cold. Psychological symptoms may include feelings of panic and being “out of control.” Abortive medications are appropriate during this period, according to the update, like triptans and antiemetics.
Next comes the emetic phase, in which patients exhibit “relentless vomiting,” retching, abdominal pain, neurological symptoms and extreme thirst. Because an empty stomach may provide relief, inducing emesis may be considered, along with rest in a quiet dark room and supportive care.
Finally, the vomiting subsides during the recovery phase, when it is possible to restart oral intake and resume normal activities.
While this framework may be useful when managing patients with CHS, intervention should be centered around cannabis cessation, according to the update.
“For long-term management, counseling to achieve marijuana cessation and tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, are the mainstay of therapy,” Dr. Rubio Tapia and colleagues wrote.
Advising patients to stop cannabis “cold turkey” is not recommended, they added, as this may bring on withdrawal symptoms, and it tends to be ineffective in this population, which has a high recidivism rate.
“Co-management with a psychologist or psychiatrist may be helpful for patients who have a lack of response to standard therapies or extensive psychiatric comorbidity,” the panelists wrote. “Anxiety and depression are very common associated conditions.”
Dr. Rubio Tapia and colleagues concluded with a call for more research.
“Further understanding of CHS pathophysiology and evidence-based therapies are urgently needed,” they wrote.
This update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Evoke Pharma, RedHill Biopharma, Takeda, and others.
.
CHS, which is triggered by chronic cannabis usage and manifests with GI and autonomic symptoms, is on the rise in the United States, yet underdiagnosis remains a challenge and clinical data are scarce, reported lead update panelist Alberto Rubio Tapia, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues.
“Although cannabis use has been reported for many decades, some of its unique adverse effects of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, termed CHS, were noted relatively recently,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “The objective of this article was to help practitioners define the appropriate approach to the diagnosis and management of CHS.”
According to the update, the typical CHS patient is male with a years-long history of daily or near-daily cannabis use. Paradoxically, while cannabis use drives this condition, some patients with CHS report that cannabis use relieves their symptoms.The update describes CHS as a subtype of cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS), and offers diagnostic criteria for CHS, reproduced below verbatim:
- Clinical features: stereotypical episodic vomiting resembling CVS in terms of onset, with frequency 3 or more times annually;
- Cannabis use patterns: duration of cannabis use more than 1 year before symptom onset; frequency more than 4 times per week, on average;
- Cannabis cessation: resolution of symptoms after a period of abstinence from cannabis use for at least 6 months, or at least equal to the total duration of 3 typical vomiting cycles in that patient.
As CHS is a subtype of CVS, the update also provides an outline and management guide for this broader condition, which is characterized by four phases: inter-episodic, prodromal, emetic, and recovery.
During the inter-episodic phase, patients will have minimal or no symptoms, although almost one third will describe dyspepsia or nausea. Prophylactic medications in this period include tricyclics, mitochondrial supplements like CoQ10 and vitamin B12, NK1 antagonists, and anticonvulsants.
The prodromal phase is characterized by abdominal pain and nausea with a duration of 30-90 minutes. During this time patients may have autonomic symptoms like sweating and feeling hot or cold. Psychological symptoms may include feelings of panic and being “out of control.” Abortive medications are appropriate during this period, according to the update, like triptans and antiemetics.
Next comes the emetic phase, in which patients exhibit “relentless vomiting,” retching, abdominal pain, neurological symptoms and extreme thirst. Because an empty stomach may provide relief, inducing emesis may be considered, along with rest in a quiet dark room and supportive care.
Finally, the vomiting subsides during the recovery phase, when it is possible to restart oral intake and resume normal activities.
While this framework may be useful when managing patients with CHS, intervention should be centered around cannabis cessation, according to the update.
“For long-term management, counseling to achieve marijuana cessation and tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, are the mainstay of therapy,” Dr. Rubio Tapia and colleagues wrote.
Advising patients to stop cannabis “cold turkey” is not recommended, they added, as this may bring on withdrawal symptoms, and it tends to be ineffective in this population, which has a high recidivism rate.
“Co-management with a psychologist or psychiatrist may be helpful for patients who have a lack of response to standard therapies or extensive psychiatric comorbidity,” the panelists wrote. “Anxiety and depression are very common associated conditions.”
Dr. Rubio Tapia and colleagues concluded with a call for more research.
“Further understanding of CHS pathophysiology and evidence-based therapies are urgently needed,” they wrote.
This update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Evoke Pharma, RedHill Biopharma, Takeda, and others.
.
CHS, which is triggered by chronic cannabis usage and manifests with GI and autonomic symptoms, is on the rise in the United States, yet underdiagnosis remains a challenge and clinical data are scarce, reported lead update panelist Alberto Rubio Tapia, MD, of Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, and colleagues.
“Although cannabis use has been reported for many decades, some of its unique adverse effects of nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, termed CHS, were noted relatively recently,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “The objective of this article was to help practitioners define the appropriate approach to the diagnosis and management of CHS.”
According to the update, the typical CHS patient is male with a years-long history of daily or near-daily cannabis use. Paradoxically, while cannabis use drives this condition, some patients with CHS report that cannabis use relieves their symptoms.The update describes CHS as a subtype of cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS), and offers diagnostic criteria for CHS, reproduced below verbatim:
- Clinical features: stereotypical episodic vomiting resembling CVS in terms of onset, with frequency 3 or more times annually;
- Cannabis use patterns: duration of cannabis use more than 1 year before symptom onset; frequency more than 4 times per week, on average;
- Cannabis cessation: resolution of symptoms after a period of abstinence from cannabis use for at least 6 months, or at least equal to the total duration of 3 typical vomiting cycles in that patient.
As CHS is a subtype of CVS, the update also provides an outline and management guide for this broader condition, which is characterized by four phases: inter-episodic, prodromal, emetic, and recovery.
During the inter-episodic phase, patients will have minimal or no symptoms, although almost one third will describe dyspepsia or nausea. Prophylactic medications in this period include tricyclics, mitochondrial supplements like CoQ10 and vitamin B12, NK1 antagonists, and anticonvulsants.
The prodromal phase is characterized by abdominal pain and nausea with a duration of 30-90 minutes. During this time patients may have autonomic symptoms like sweating and feeling hot or cold. Psychological symptoms may include feelings of panic and being “out of control.” Abortive medications are appropriate during this period, according to the update, like triptans and antiemetics.
Next comes the emetic phase, in which patients exhibit “relentless vomiting,” retching, abdominal pain, neurological symptoms and extreme thirst. Because an empty stomach may provide relief, inducing emesis may be considered, along with rest in a quiet dark room and supportive care.
Finally, the vomiting subsides during the recovery phase, when it is possible to restart oral intake and resume normal activities.
While this framework may be useful when managing patients with CHS, intervention should be centered around cannabis cessation, according to the update.
“For long-term management, counseling to achieve marijuana cessation and tricyclic antidepressants, such as amitriptyline, are the mainstay of therapy,” Dr. Rubio Tapia and colleagues wrote.
Advising patients to stop cannabis “cold turkey” is not recommended, they added, as this may bring on withdrawal symptoms, and it tends to be ineffective in this population, which has a high recidivism rate.
“Co-management with a psychologist or psychiatrist may be helpful for patients who have a lack of response to standard therapies or extensive psychiatric comorbidity,” the panelists wrote. “Anxiety and depression are very common associated conditions.”
Dr. Rubio Tapia and colleagues concluded with a call for more research.
“Further understanding of CHS pathophysiology and evidence-based therapies are urgently needed,” they wrote.
This update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Evoke Pharma, RedHill Biopharma, Takeda, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
TRAIL-targeting Therapies Still Hold Promise in Cholangiocarcinoma
primarily due to the adaptive resistance and unexpected immune modulation, according to investigators.
Those prior studies evaluated a combination of immunotherapy and TRAIL agonism, but selective TRAIL antagonism shows greater potential via dual ligand/receptor (TRAIL/TRAIL-R) targeting to block immunosuppression, reported lead author Emilien J. Loeuillard, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues.
“The TRAIL/TRAIL-R system has garnered considerable interest in cancer biology, especially as a potential anticancer therapy,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, TRAIL-R agonists have had very limited anticancer activity in human beings, challenging this concept of TRAIL as an anticancer agent.”
This may be because they were working in the wrong direction, Dr. Loeuillard and colleagues suggested, citing recent work linking TRAIL with tumor proliferation and invasion, possibly via modification of the tumor immune microenvironment.
Exact mechanisms of modification, however, remain unclear. While TRAIL has been associated with tumor-promoting effects like induction of a promyeloid secretome in adenocarcinoma, it has also been linked with anticancer effects like activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
“Thus, the potency and hierarchy of TRAIL anticancer vs procancer processes in cancer biology has yet to be defined,” the investigators wrote.
While TRAIL ligation of cognate receptors has been previously investigated and shown to trigger proapoptotic signaling pathways, noncanonical TRAIL-mediated signaling remains largely unexplored, particularly in CCA.
The present study evaluated TRAIL biology in CCA using immunocompetent mouse models.
These experiments showed that noncanonical TRAIL signaling immunosuppresses the tumor microenvironment by increasing quantity and activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Blocking noncanonical TRAIL signaling by selective deletion of TRAIL-R in immune cells had significantly reduced tumor volumes alongside fewer MDSCs, driven by FLICE inhibitory protein (cFLIP)-dependent nuclear factor kappa-B activation (NF-kappa-B) in MDSCs, which has antiapoptotic activity. While MDSCs present one possible target in this chain of immunosuppression, “therapeutic strategies for targeting MDSCs are limited,” the investigators wrote, noting that available myeloid modulators have fallen short in clinical trials.
Instead, cFLIP may be a convincing option, they suggested, as targeting cFLIP can sensitize cancer cells to proapoptotic TRAIL signaling. What’s more, cFLIP appears to protect MDSCs from TRAIL-mediated apoptosis, so taking out this barrier could render MDSCs susceptible to therapy.
“Our studies suggest that switching prosurvival/proliferation TRAIL signaling to canonical proapoptotic TRAIL signaling will promote MDSC apoptosis, which in turn has therapeutic implications for CCA suppression,” the investigators wrote.
Hope therefore remains for targeting TRAIL in patients with CCA, but with selective antagonism instead of agonism, as previously attempted.
“In summary, our findings support the role of selective therapeutic targeting of TRAIL-positive cancer cells in an effort to block TRAIL/TRAIL-R–mediated tumor immunosuppression,” Dr. Loeuillard and colleagues concluded.
This study was funded by the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Mayo Clinic Eagles 5th District Cancer Telethon Funds for Research Fellowship Program, the CTSA/National Center for Advancing Translational Science, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The dismal response of cholangiocarcinoma to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is particularly concerning, as it impedes the adoption of combination regimens, now standard in most solid tumors. Strategies modulating selective genes involved in the tumor inflammatory environment and tumor cell viability, including those within the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, parallel the mechanism of action of ICI and present a double-edged sword due to the context-dependent pro- and/or anticancer effects of their canonical and/or phantom roles.
Recent investigations suggest that selectively antagonizing TRAIL via (TRAIL/TRAIL-R) targeting may be more effective than agonism. Dr. Ilyas’ group from Mayo Clinic delved into the potential of TRAIL in cancer biology, particularly in CCA, shedding light on the complexities of TRAIL’s role in cancer, where both procancer and anticancer effects are observed.
Further investigation is warranted to explore how TRAIL/TRAIL-R therapy can be effectively combined with other broad-spectrum and/or targeted therapies to maximize selective toxicity to CCA cells, sparing the nonmalignant tissue, thereby extending the lifespan of CCA patients as well as assessing its preventive potential in predisposed premalignant stages, including cholestasis patients.
Sungjin Ko, DVM, PhD, is assistant professor in the Division of Experimental Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is also a member of the Pittsburgh Liver Research Center. He reported no conflicts of interest.
The dismal response of cholangiocarcinoma to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is particularly concerning, as it impedes the adoption of combination regimens, now standard in most solid tumors. Strategies modulating selective genes involved in the tumor inflammatory environment and tumor cell viability, including those within the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, parallel the mechanism of action of ICI and present a double-edged sword due to the context-dependent pro- and/or anticancer effects of their canonical and/or phantom roles.
Recent investigations suggest that selectively antagonizing TRAIL via (TRAIL/TRAIL-R) targeting may be more effective than agonism. Dr. Ilyas’ group from Mayo Clinic delved into the potential of TRAIL in cancer biology, particularly in CCA, shedding light on the complexities of TRAIL’s role in cancer, where both procancer and anticancer effects are observed.
Further investigation is warranted to explore how TRAIL/TRAIL-R therapy can be effectively combined with other broad-spectrum and/or targeted therapies to maximize selective toxicity to CCA cells, sparing the nonmalignant tissue, thereby extending the lifespan of CCA patients as well as assessing its preventive potential in predisposed premalignant stages, including cholestasis patients.
Sungjin Ko, DVM, PhD, is assistant professor in the Division of Experimental Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is also a member of the Pittsburgh Liver Research Center. He reported no conflicts of interest.
The dismal response of cholangiocarcinoma to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) is particularly concerning, as it impedes the adoption of combination regimens, now standard in most solid tumors. Strategies modulating selective genes involved in the tumor inflammatory environment and tumor cell viability, including those within the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, parallel the mechanism of action of ICI and present a double-edged sword due to the context-dependent pro- and/or anticancer effects of their canonical and/or phantom roles.
Recent investigations suggest that selectively antagonizing TRAIL via (TRAIL/TRAIL-R) targeting may be more effective than agonism. Dr. Ilyas’ group from Mayo Clinic delved into the potential of TRAIL in cancer biology, particularly in CCA, shedding light on the complexities of TRAIL’s role in cancer, where both procancer and anticancer effects are observed.
Further investigation is warranted to explore how TRAIL/TRAIL-R therapy can be effectively combined with other broad-spectrum and/or targeted therapies to maximize selective toxicity to CCA cells, sparing the nonmalignant tissue, thereby extending the lifespan of CCA patients as well as assessing its preventive potential in predisposed premalignant stages, including cholestasis patients.
Sungjin Ko, DVM, PhD, is assistant professor in the Division of Experimental Pathology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is also a member of the Pittsburgh Liver Research Center. He reported no conflicts of interest.
primarily due to the adaptive resistance and unexpected immune modulation, according to investigators.
Those prior studies evaluated a combination of immunotherapy and TRAIL agonism, but selective TRAIL antagonism shows greater potential via dual ligand/receptor (TRAIL/TRAIL-R) targeting to block immunosuppression, reported lead author Emilien J. Loeuillard, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues.
“The TRAIL/TRAIL-R system has garnered considerable interest in cancer biology, especially as a potential anticancer therapy,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, TRAIL-R agonists have had very limited anticancer activity in human beings, challenging this concept of TRAIL as an anticancer agent.”
This may be because they were working in the wrong direction, Dr. Loeuillard and colleagues suggested, citing recent work linking TRAIL with tumor proliferation and invasion, possibly via modification of the tumor immune microenvironment.
Exact mechanisms of modification, however, remain unclear. While TRAIL has been associated with tumor-promoting effects like induction of a promyeloid secretome in adenocarcinoma, it has also been linked with anticancer effects like activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
“Thus, the potency and hierarchy of TRAIL anticancer vs procancer processes in cancer biology has yet to be defined,” the investigators wrote.
While TRAIL ligation of cognate receptors has been previously investigated and shown to trigger proapoptotic signaling pathways, noncanonical TRAIL-mediated signaling remains largely unexplored, particularly in CCA.
The present study evaluated TRAIL biology in CCA using immunocompetent mouse models.
These experiments showed that noncanonical TRAIL signaling immunosuppresses the tumor microenvironment by increasing quantity and activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Blocking noncanonical TRAIL signaling by selective deletion of TRAIL-R in immune cells had significantly reduced tumor volumes alongside fewer MDSCs, driven by FLICE inhibitory protein (cFLIP)-dependent nuclear factor kappa-B activation (NF-kappa-B) in MDSCs, which has antiapoptotic activity. While MDSCs present one possible target in this chain of immunosuppression, “therapeutic strategies for targeting MDSCs are limited,” the investigators wrote, noting that available myeloid modulators have fallen short in clinical trials.
Instead, cFLIP may be a convincing option, they suggested, as targeting cFLIP can sensitize cancer cells to proapoptotic TRAIL signaling. What’s more, cFLIP appears to protect MDSCs from TRAIL-mediated apoptosis, so taking out this barrier could render MDSCs susceptible to therapy.
“Our studies suggest that switching prosurvival/proliferation TRAIL signaling to canonical proapoptotic TRAIL signaling will promote MDSC apoptosis, which in turn has therapeutic implications for CCA suppression,” the investigators wrote.
Hope therefore remains for targeting TRAIL in patients with CCA, but with selective antagonism instead of agonism, as previously attempted.
“In summary, our findings support the role of selective therapeutic targeting of TRAIL-positive cancer cells in an effort to block TRAIL/TRAIL-R–mediated tumor immunosuppression,” Dr. Loeuillard and colleagues concluded.
This study was funded by the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Mayo Clinic Eagles 5th District Cancer Telethon Funds for Research Fellowship Program, the CTSA/National Center for Advancing Translational Science, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
primarily due to the adaptive resistance and unexpected immune modulation, according to investigators.
Those prior studies evaluated a combination of immunotherapy and TRAIL agonism, but selective TRAIL antagonism shows greater potential via dual ligand/receptor (TRAIL/TRAIL-R) targeting to block immunosuppression, reported lead author Emilien J. Loeuillard, PhD, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, and colleagues.
“The TRAIL/TRAIL-R system has garnered considerable interest in cancer biology, especially as a potential anticancer therapy,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, TRAIL-R agonists have had very limited anticancer activity in human beings, challenging this concept of TRAIL as an anticancer agent.”
This may be because they were working in the wrong direction, Dr. Loeuillard and colleagues suggested, citing recent work linking TRAIL with tumor proliferation and invasion, possibly via modification of the tumor immune microenvironment.
Exact mechanisms of modification, however, remain unclear. While TRAIL has been associated with tumor-promoting effects like induction of a promyeloid secretome in adenocarcinoma, it has also been linked with anticancer effects like activation of natural killer cells and cytotoxic T lymphocytes.
“Thus, the potency and hierarchy of TRAIL anticancer vs procancer processes in cancer biology has yet to be defined,” the investigators wrote.
While TRAIL ligation of cognate receptors has been previously investigated and shown to trigger proapoptotic signaling pathways, noncanonical TRAIL-mediated signaling remains largely unexplored, particularly in CCA.
The present study evaluated TRAIL biology in CCA using immunocompetent mouse models.
These experiments showed that noncanonical TRAIL signaling immunosuppresses the tumor microenvironment by increasing quantity and activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Blocking noncanonical TRAIL signaling by selective deletion of TRAIL-R in immune cells had significantly reduced tumor volumes alongside fewer MDSCs, driven by FLICE inhibitory protein (cFLIP)-dependent nuclear factor kappa-B activation (NF-kappa-B) in MDSCs, which has antiapoptotic activity. While MDSCs present one possible target in this chain of immunosuppression, “therapeutic strategies for targeting MDSCs are limited,” the investigators wrote, noting that available myeloid modulators have fallen short in clinical trials.
Instead, cFLIP may be a convincing option, they suggested, as targeting cFLIP can sensitize cancer cells to proapoptotic TRAIL signaling. What’s more, cFLIP appears to protect MDSCs from TRAIL-mediated apoptosis, so taking out this barrier could render MDSCs susceptible to therapy.
“Our studies suggest that switching prosurvival/proliferation TRAIL signaling to canonical proapoptotic TRAIL signaling will promote MDSC apoptosis, which in turn has therapeutic implications for CCA suppression,” the investigators wrote.
Hope therefore remains for targeting TRAIL in patients with CCA, but with selective antagonism instead of agonism, as previously attempted.
“In summary, our findings support the role of selective therapeutic targeting of TRAIL-positive cancer cells in an effort to block TRAIL/TRAIL-R–mediated tumor immunosuppression,” Dr. Loeuillard and colleagues concluded.
This study was funded by the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Mayo Clinic Eagles 5th District Cancer Telethon Funds for Research Fellowship Program, the CTSA/National Center for Advancing Translational Science, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
IBD: Histologic Inflammation Linked With Lower Female Fertility
, according to a Swedish nationwide cohort study.
Reduced fertility was linked with histologic inflammation even in the absence of clinical disease activity, highlighting the importance of achieving deep remission in women planning pregnancy, reported lead author Karl Mårild, MD, PhD, of Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden, and colleagues.
“Reduced female fertility (ie, number of live births) is believed to be primarily confined to women with clinically active IBD, especially in Crohn’s disease (CD), where symptoms may inhibit sexual activity, and inflammation may affect the fallopian tubes and ovaries,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Despite the increasing appreciation of histologic activity in IBD, its association with female fertility has not been clarified, including whether histologic activity in the absence of clinical disease activity impairs fertility.”
Dr. Mårild and colleagues aimed to address this knowledge gap by analyzing fertility rates and histologic inflammation or IBD activity in two cohorts of women with IBD aged 15-44 years. The first group included approximately 21,000 women with and without histologic inflammation from 1990 to 2016. The second group included approximately 25,000 women with or without IBD clinical activity from 2006 to 2020. In each group, the relationship between fertility and IBD was compared with fertility in matched general population comparator individuals.
This approach showed that clinical IBD activity was associated with an adjusted fertility rate ratio (aFRR) of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79), which equates to one fewer child per six women with 10 years of clinical activity. Impacts on fertility were similar for UC (aFRR, 0.75) and CD (aFRR, 0.76).
“Fertility rates were notably reduced during periods of clinical IBD activity and, contrary to a generally accepted belief, equally reduced in clinically active UC and CD,” the investigators wrote. “Besides inflammation, clinically active IBD may reduce fertility through psychological mechanisms (eg, depression), dyspareunia (especially in perianal CD), bowel pain, urgency, and other symptoms that hinder sexual activity.”
Compared with histologic remission, histologic inflammation was also associated with reduced fertility (aFRR, 0.90). This means that in periods of histologic inflammation, 6.35 live births occurred per 100 person-years of follow-up, compared with 7.09 lives births for periods of histologic remission. This amounts to one fewer child per 14 women with 10 years of histologic inflammation.
Finally, the study revealed that, in women with clinically quiescent IBD, those with histologic inflammation had significantly reduced fertility, compared with those in histologic remission (aFRR, 0.85). This association persisted after controlling for contraceptive use.
“Even if histologic inflammation was associated with an overall modest fertility reduction … its impact on the individual might be substantial, with potential ramifications beyond reproductive health, given that reduced female fertility is linked to poor quality of life and mental health,” Dr. Mårild and colleagues wrote. “At a societal level, involuntary childlessness causes high and increasing costs, highlighting the need to focus on preventable causes of reduced fertility.”
The investigators suggested that inflammation may be driving infertility by reducing ovulation and fertilization, or by reducing endometrial receptivity, which increases risk of pregnancy loss.
“This is the first study, to our knowledge, to show reduced fertility during histologic inflammation in IBD compared to histologic remission,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings suggest that achieving histologic remission may improve the fertility of women with IBD, even in the absence of clinically defined disease activity.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, and others.
The importance of controlling inflammation to ensure a healthy pregnancy cannot be overstated. With regard to fertility, the literature has emphasized that surgery has been the major risk factor for decreasing fertility in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Disease activity has been more influential on Crohn’s disease versus ulcerative colitis. Other factors such as voluntary childlessness, premature ovarian failure, and malnutrition can also play a role. There have been data to show that anti–tumor necrosis factor use increases the chances of successful implantation for women with sub-fertility who do not have concomitant IBD, perhaps by decreasing inflammation in the pelvis.
Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, AGAF, is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. She reports serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, and Takeda. She is also Section Editor for IBD for UptoDate.
The importance of controlling inflammation to ensure a healthy pregnancy cannot be overstated. With regard to fertility, the literature has emphasized that surgery has been the major risk factor for decreasing fertility in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Disease activity has been more influential on Crohn’s disease versus ulcerative colitis. Other factors such as voluntary childlessness, premature ovarian failure, and malnutrition can also play a role. There have been data to show that anti–tumor necrosis factor use increases the chances of successful implantation for women with sub-fertility who do not have concomitant IBD, perhaps by decreasing inflammation in the pelvis.
Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, AGAF, is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. She reports serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, and Takeda. She is also Section Editor for IBD for UptoDate.
The importance of controlling inflammation to ensure a healthy pregnancy cannot be overstated. With regard to fertility, the literature has emphasized that surgery has been the major risk factor for decreasing fertility in both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Disease activity has been more influential on Crohn’s disease versus ulcerative colitis. Other factors such as voluntary childlessness, premature ovarian failure, and malnutrition can also play a role. There have been data to show that anti–tumor necrosis factor use increases the chances of successful implantation for women with sub-fertility who do not have concomitant IBD, perhaps by decreasing inflammation in the pelvis.
Sunanda Kane, MD, MSPH, AGAF, is based in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. She reports serving as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, and Takeda. She is also Section Editor for IBD for UptoDate.
, according to a Swedish nationwide cohort study.
Reduced fertility was linked with histologic inflammation even in the absence of clinical disease activity, highlighting the importance of achieving deep remission in women planning pregnancy, reported lead author Karl Mårild, MD, PhD, of Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden, and colleagues.
“Reduced female fertility (ie, number of live births) is believed to be primarily confined to women with clinically active IBD, especially in Crohn’s disease (CD), where symptoms may inhibit sexual activity, and inflammation may affect the fallopian tubes and ovaries,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Despite the increasing appreciation of histologic activity in IBD, its association with female fertility has not been clarified, including whether histologic activity in the absence of clinical disease activity impairs fertility.”
Dr. Mårild and colleagues aimed to address this knowledge gap by analyzing fertility rates and histologic inflammation or IBD activity in two cohorts of women with IBD aged 15-44 years. The first group included approximately 21,000 women with and without histologic inflammation from 1990 to 2016. The second group included approximately 25,000 women with or without IBD clinical activity from 2006 to 2020. In each group, the relationship between fertility and IBD was compared with fertility in matched general population comparator individuals.
This approach showed that clinical IBD activity was associated with an adjusted fertility rate ratio (aFRR) of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79), which equates to one fewer child per six women with 10 years of clinical activity. Impacts on fertility were similar for UC (aFRR, 0.75) and CD (aFRR, 0.76).
“Fertility rates were notably reduced during periods of clinical IBD activity and, contrary to a generally accepted belief, equally reduced in clinically active UC and CD,” the investigators wrote. “Besides inflammation, clinically active IBD may reduce fertility through psychological mechanisms (eg, depression), dyspareunia (especially in perianal CD), bowel pain, urgency, and other symptoms that hinder sexual activity.”
Compared with histologic remission, histologic inflammation was also associated with reduced fertility (aFRR, 0.90). This means that in periods of histologic inflammation, 6.35 live births occurred per 100 person-years of follow-up, compared with 7.09 lives births for periods of histologic remission. This amounts to one fewer child per 14 women with 10 years of histologic inflammation.
Finally, the study revealed that, in women with clinically quiescent IBD, those with histologic inflammation had significantly reduced fertility, compared with those in histologic remission (aFRR, 0.85). This association persisted after controlling for contraceptive use.
“Even if histologic inflammation was associated with an overall modest fertility reduction … its impact on the individual might be substantial, with potential ramifications beyond reproductive health, given that reduced female fertility is linked to poor quality of life and mental health,” Dr. Mårild and colleagues wrote. “At a societal level, involuntary childlessness causes high and increasing costs, highlighting the need to focus on preventable causes of reduced fertility.”
The investigators suggested that inflammation may be driving infertility by reducing ovulation and fertilization, or by reducing endometrial receptivity, which increases risk of pregnancy loss.
“This is the first study, to our knowledge, to show reduced fertility during histologic inflammation in IBD compared to histologic remission,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings suggest that achieving histologic remission may improve the fertility of women with IBD, even in the absence of clinically defined disease activity.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, and others.
, according to a Swedish nationwide cohort study.
Reduced fertility was linked with histologic inflammation even in the absence of clinical disease activity, highlighting the importance of achieving deep remission in women planning pregnancy, reported lead author Karl Mårild, MD, PhD, of Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden, and colleagues.
“Reduced female fertility (ie, number of live births) is believed to be primarily confined to women with clinically active IBD, especially in Crohn’s disease (CD), where symptoms may inhibit sexual activity, and inflammation may affect the fallopian tubes and ovaries,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “Despite the increasing appreciation of histologic activity in IBD, its association with female fertility has not been clarified, including whether histologic activity in the absence of clinical disease activity impairs fertility.”
Dr. Mårild and colleagues aimed to address this knowledge gap by analyzing fertility rates and histologic inflammation or IBD activity in two cohorts of women with IBD aged 15-44 years. The first group included approximately 21,000 women with and without histologic inflammation from 1990 to 2016. The second group included approximately 25,000 women with or without IBD clinical activity from 2006 to 2020. In each group, the relationship between fertility and IBD was compared with fertility in matched general population comparator individuals.
This approach showed that clinical IBD activity was associated with an adjusted fertility rate ratio (aFRR) of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.79), which equates to one fewer child per six women with 10 years of clinical activity. Impacts on fertility were similar for UC (aFRR, 0.75) and CD (aFRR, 0.76).
“Fertility rates were notably reduced during periods of clinical IBD activity and, contrary to a generally accepted belief, equally reduced in clinically active UC and CD,” the investigators wrote. “Besides inflammation, clinically active IBD may reduce fertility through psychological mechanisms (eg, depression), dyspareunia (especially in perianal CD), bowel pain, urgency, and other symptoms that hinder sexual activity.”
Compared with histologic remission, histologic inflammation was also associated with reduced fertility (aFRR, 0.90). This means that in periods of histologic inflammation, 6.35 live births occurred per 100 person-years of follow-up, compared with 7.09 lives births for periods of histologic remission. This amounts to one fewer child per 14 women with 10 years of histologic inflammation.
Finally, the study revealed that, in women with clinically quiescent IBD, those with histologic inflammation had significantly reduced fertility, compared with those in histologic remission (aFRR, 0.85). This association persisted after controlling for contraceptive use.
“Even if histologic inflammation was associated with an overall modest fertility reduction … its impact on the individual might be substantial, with potential ramifications beyond reproductive health, given that reduced female fertility is linked to poor quality of life and mental health,” Dr. Mårild and colleagues wrote. “At a societal level, involuntary childlessness causes high and increasing costs, highlighting the need to focus on preventable causes of reduced fertility.”
The investigators suggested that inflammation may be driving infertility by reducing ovulation and fertilization, or by reducing endometrial receptivity, which increases risk of pregnancy loss.
“This is the first study, to our knowledge, to show reduced fertility during histologic inflammation in IBD compared to histologic remission,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings suggest that achieving histologic remission may improve the fertility of women with IBD, even in the absence of clinically defined disease activity.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, Janssen, and others.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
AGA Clinical Practice Update Describes High-Quality Upper Endoscopy
The update, authored by Satish Nagula, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, and colleagues, includes nine pieces of best practice advice that address procedure optimization, evaluation of suspected premalignancy, and postprocedure follow-up evaluation.
“Defining what constitutes a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) poses somewhat of a challenge because the spectrum of indications and the breadth of benign and (pre)malignant disease pathology in the upper GI tract is very broad,” the update panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Standardizing the measures defining a high-quality upper endoscopic examination is one of the first steps for assessing quality.”
Preprocedure Recommendations
Dr. Nagula and colleagues first emphasized that EGD should be performed for an appropriate indication, citing a recent meta-analysis that found 21.7% of upper endoscopy procedures were performed for an inappropriate indication. Of note, diagnostic yields were 42% higher in procedures performed for an appropriate indication.
After ensuring an appropriate indication, the update also encourages clinicians to inform patients of the various benefits, risks, and alternatives of the procedure prior to providing consent.
Intraprocedure Recommendations
During the procedure, endoscopists should take several steps to ensure optimal visualization of tissues, according to the update.
First, a high-definition (HD) white-light endoscopy system should be employed.
“Although HD imaging is a standard feature of newer-generation endoscopes, legacy standard-definition scopes remain in use,” Dr. Nagula and colleagues noted. “Moreover, to provide true HD image resolution, each component of the system (eg, the endoscope video chip, the processor, the monitor, and transmission cables) must be HD compatible.”
This HD-compatible system should be coupled with image-enhancing technology to further improve lesion detection. In Barrett’s esophagus, the panelists noted, image enhancement can improve lesion detection as much as 20%.
They predicted that AI-assisted software may boost detection rates even higher: “Computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis systems for upper endoscopy are still in the early phases of development but do show similar promise for improving the detection and characterization of upper GI tract neoplasia.”
Beyond selection of best available technologies, the update encourages more fundamental strategies to improve visualization, including mucosal cleansing and insufflation, with sufficient time spent inspecting the foregut mucosa via anterograde and retroflexed views.
Where appropriate, standardized biopsy protocols should be followed to evaluate and manage foregut conditions.
Postprocedure Recommendations
After the procedure, endoscopists should offer patients management recommendations based on the endoscopic findings and, if necessary, notify them that more recommendations may be forthcoming based on histopathology results, according to the update.
Similarly, endoscopists should follow established surveillance intervals for future procedures, with modifications made as needed, based on histopathology findings.
Document, Document, Document
Throughout the update, Dr. Nagula and colleagues repeatedly emphasize the importance of documentation, from preprocedural discussions with patients through planned surveillance schedules.
However, the recommendations are clear about “weighing the practical implications” of “onerous” documentation, particularly photodocumentation requirements. For instance, the authors note that “there are some scenarios in which more rigorous photodocumentation standards during upper endoscopy should be considered, such as patients with risk factors for neoplasia,” but at the very least “photodocumentation of any suspicious abnormalities, ideally with annotations, is strongly advised.”
Moving Toward Quality Standardization for Upper Endoscopy
“These best practice advice statements are intended to improve measurable clinical, patient-reported, and economic healthcare outcomes and are not meant to put an additional burden on endoscopists,” the panelists wrote. “Ideally, future research will set threshold indicators of adherence to these best practices that optimally are associated with these aforementioned objective outcomes.”
This update was commissioned and approved by AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Covidien LP, Fujifilm USA, Mahana Therapeutics, and others.
The update, authored by Satish Nagula, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, and colleagues, includes nine pieces of best practice advice that address procedure optimization, evaluation of suspected premalignancy, and postprocedure follow-up evaluation.
“Defining what constitutes a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) poses somewhat of a challenge because the spectrum of indications and the breadth of benign and (pre)malignant disease pathology in the upper GI tract is very broad,” the update panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Standardizing the measures defining a high-quality upper endoscopic examination is one of the first steps for assessing quality.”
Preprocedure Recommendations
Dr. Nagula and colleagues first emphasized that EGD should be performed for an appropriate indication, citing a recent meta-analysis that found 21.7% of upper endoscopy procedures were performed for an inappropriate indication. Of note, diagnostic yields were 42% higher in procedures performed for an appropriate indication.
After ensuring an appropriate indication, the update also encourages clinicians to inform patients of the various benefits, risks, and alternatives of the procedure prior to providing consent.
Intraprocedure Recommendations
During the procedure, endoscopists should take several steps to ensure optimal visualization of tissues, according to the update.
First, a high-definition (HD) white-light endoscopy system should be employed.
“Although HD imaging is a standard feature of newer-generation endoscopes, legacy standard-definition scopes remain in use,” Dr. Nagula and colleagues noted. “Moreover, to provide true HD image resolution, each component of the system (eg, the endoscope video chip, the processor, the monitor, and transmission cables) must be HD compatible.”
This HD-compatible system should be coupled with image-enhancing technology to further improve lesion detection. In Barrett’s esophagus, the panelists noted, image enhancement can improve lesion detection as much as 20%.
They predicted that AI-assisted software may boost detection rates even higher: “Computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis systems for upper endoscopy are still in the early phases of development but do show similar promise for improving the detection and characterization of upper GI tract neoplasia.”
Beyond selection of best available technologies, the update encourages more fundamental strategies to improve visualization, including mucosal cleansing and insufflation, with sufficient time spent inspecting the foregut mucosa via anterograde and retroflexed views.
Where appropriate, standardized biopsy protocols should be followed to evaluate and manage foregut conditions.
Postprocedure Recommendations
After the procedure, endoscopists should offer patients management recommendations based on the endoscopic findings and, if necessary, notify them that more recommendations may be forthcoming based on histopathology results, according to the update.
Similarly, endoscopists should follow established surveillance intervals for future procedures, with modifications made as needed, based on histopathology findings.
Document, Document, Document
Throughout the update, Dr. Nagula and colleagues repeatedly emphasize the importance of documentation, from preprocedural discussions with patients through planned surveillance schedules.
However, the recommendations are clear about “weighing the practical implications” of “onerous” documentation, particularly photodocumentation requirements. For instance, the authors note that “there are some scenarios in which more rigorous photodocumentation standards during upper endoscopy should be considered, such as patients with risk factors for neoplasia,” but at the very least “photodocumentation of any suspicious abnormalities, ideally with annotations, is strongly advised.”
Moving Toward Quality Standardization for Upper Endoscopy
“These best practice advice statements are intended to improve measurable clinical, patient-reported, and economic healthcare outcomes and are not meant to put an additional burden on endoscopists,” the panelists wrote. “Ideally, future research will set threshold indicators of adherence to these best practices that optimally are associated with these aforementioned objective outcomes.”
This update was commissioned and approved by AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Covidien LP, Fujifilm USA, Mahana Therapeutics, and others.
The update, authored by Satish Nagula, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, and colleagues, includes nine pieces of best practice advice that address procedure optimization, evaluation of suspected premalignancy, and postprocedure follow-up evaluation.
“Defining what constitutes a high-quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) poses somewhat of a challenge because the spectrum of indications and the breadth of benign and (pre)malignant disease pathology in the upper GI tract is very broad,” the update panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Standardizing the measures defining a high-quality upper endoscopic examination is one of the first steps for assessing quality.”
Preprocedure Recommendations
Dr. Nagula and colleagues first emphasized that EGD should be performed for an appropriate indication, citing a recent meta-analysis that found 21.7% of upper endoscopy procedures were performed for an inappropriate indication. Of note, diagnostic yields were 42% higher in procedures performed for an appropriate indication.
After ensuring an appropriate indication, the update also encourages clinicians to inform patients of the various benefits, risks, and alternatives of the procedure prior to providing consent.
Intraprocedure Recommendations
During the procedure, endoscopists should take several steps to ensure optimal visualization of tissues, according to the update.
First, a high-definition (HD) white-light endoscopy system should be employed.
“Although HD imaging is a standard feature of newer-generation endoscopes, legacy standard-definition scopes remain in use,” Dr. Nagula and colleagues noted. “Moreover, to provide true HD image resolution, each component of the system (eg, the endoscope video chip, the processor, the monitor, and transmission cables) must be HD compatible.”
This HD-compatible system should be coupled with image-enhancing technology to further improve lesion detection. In Barrett’s esophagus, the panelists noted, image enhancement can improve lesion detection as much as 20%.
They predicted that AI-assisted software may boost detection rates even higher: “Computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis systems for upper endoscopy are still in the early phases of development but do show similar promise for improving the detection and characterization of upper GI tract neoplasia.”
Beyond selection of best available technologies, the update encourages more fundamental strategies to improve visualization, including mucosal cleansing and insufflation, with sufficient time spent inspecting the foregut mucosa via anterograde and retroflexed views.
Where appropriate, standardized biopsy protocols should be followed to evaluate and manage foregut conditions.
Postprocedure Recommendations
After the procedure, endoscopists should offer patients management recommendations based on the endoscopic findings and, if necessary, notify them that more recommendations may be forthcoming based on histopathology results, according to the update.
Similarly, endoscopists should follow established surveillance intervals for future procedures, with modifications made as needed, based on histopathology findings.
Document, Document, Document
Throughout the update, Dr. Nagula and colleagues repeatedly emphasize the importance of documentation, from preprocedural discussions with patients through planned surveillance schedules.
However, the recommendations are clear about “weighing the practical implications” of “onerous” documentation, particularly photodocumentation requirements. For instance, the authors note that “there are some scenarios in which more rigorous photodocumentation standards during upper endoscopy should be considered, such as patients with risk factors for neoplasia,” but at the very least “photodocumentation of any suspicious abnormalities, ideally with annotations, is strongly advised.”
Moving Toward Quality Standardization for Upper Endoscopy
“These best practice advice statements are intended to improve measurable clinical, patient-reported, and economic healthcare outcomes and are not meant to put an additional burden on endoscopists,” the panelists wrote. “Ideally, future research will set threshold indicators of adherence to these best practices that optimally are associated with these aforementioned objective outcomes.”
This update was commissioned and approved by AGA. The update panelists disclosed relationships with Covidien LP, Fujifilm USA, Mahana Therapeutics, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Power-Washing Moves Beyond Home Improvement, Into Gastroenterology
Power-washing is no longer just for blasting grimy driveways and stripping flaky paint. It’s good for work inside the gut, too.
In a proof-of-concept study, a “novel systematically directed high-pressure liquid spray,” delivered via the ERBEJET flexible probe, showed promise for collecting cytology specimens from the stomachs of patients undergoing endoscopy for gastric cancer screening or surveillance, reported lead author Charles J. Lightdale, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues.
“Systematic random biopsies (updated Sydney protocol) have been recommended to increase detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, random biopsies can be laborious, time consuming, costly, and susceptible to sampling error owing to the large surface area of the stomach.”
Power-washing, in contrast, with the pressure dial turned to 10 bar, involves spraying the gut in a systematic fashion “using sweeping and painting motions” to dislodge cells from the mucosa. These specimens are then suctioned from the resultant pools of liquid, mixed 1:1 with 10% formalin, and shipped to the lab.
Boom! Cytology!
Just to be sure, however, the nine patients involved in the study also underwent standard-of-care biopsy collection from areas of interest, followed by random sampling according to the updated Sydney protocol. Two of the patients were power-washed again 12 months later for endoscopic surveillance.
Power-washing added 7-10 minutes to standard endoscopy time and generated 60-100 mL of liquid for collection. Post suction, a closer look at the gastric mucosa revealed “scattered superficial erosions,” while blood loss was deemed “minimal.” The procedure appeared well tolerated, with no aspiration or esophageal reflux during endoscopy, or adverse events reported by patients after 1 week of follow-up.
Cytopathology samples were deemed satisfactory and yielded “multiple strips and large clusters of cells.” These were sufficient to diagnose GIM in three patients and reactive glandular changes with inflammation in one patient, with findings confirmed on biopsy. In contrast, the power-washed cells from one patient were “highly suspicious” for dysplasia, but biopsies were negative.
Although the study was too small for a reliable comparison with the Sydney protocol, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues concluded that the power-wash approach deserves further investigation.
“ and to reduce morbidity and mortality from gastric cancer,” they wrote.
The investigators predicted that power-washing is likely safe in most patients, although it may be unsuitable for those with noncorrectable coagulopathies or in patients who cannot stop anticoagulants. Postsurgical patients, on the other hand, should tolerate the procedure just fine.
Patients with risk of gastric cancer “might be an important group” for evaluating the power-wash procedure, the investigators wrote, noting that combining the approach with artificial intelligence could one day yield even better results.
In the meantime, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues — like so many weekend warriors wielding a power-washer — are going to see if a different nozzle will take their work to the next level.
“We are actively studying a catheter with a broader stream and the potential to increase efficiency and decrease procedure time,” they wrote. “Another catheter design might allow for simultaneous spray and suction, so that cytology samples from specific regions of the stomach could be separately analyzed.”
This study was funded by Dalio Philanthropies, the Price Family Foundation, and the Frederic and Patricia Salerno Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and others.
The optimal surveillance endoscopic modality for gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is yet to be determined. Although the updated Sydney System, a comprehensive endoscopic biopsy protocol, has been advocated for GIM mapping, challenges are the heterogeneous distribution of GIM, suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy to detect GIM, and the cost burden of multiple biopsies.
This study by Lightdale et al. demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of obtaining cytology for the detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia by using a systemic endoscopy-guided high-pressure spray “power-wash” method. In this study, all cytophathology samples in nine subjects were deemed satisfactory for evaluation. All three subjects who were cytology positive for GIM on H&E stain and confirmed with positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed GIM on biopsy, and one subject had cells highly suspicious for dysplasia on cytology but biopsy was negative. Although all patients showed multiple superficial erosions after power-wash, bleeding was minimal and no adverse events related to power-wash were observed.
Applying cytology for detection of GIM appears promising as the way of collecting samples from the large surface area of the stomach. As clinicians, however, we are still left with some challenges. Even if cells collected are suspicious for dysplasia/neoplasia by this power-wash method, it would not be useful unless we precisely localize the area as we can not provide a focal curative endoscopic treatment. It is critical to increase the yield of localization of cytology sampling. Further research is also needed to standardize the cytopathologic diagnostic criteria of GIM and cost-effectiveness of the cytology-based approach compared to the current gold-standard biopsy protocol for the diagnosis of GIM.
Yutaka Tomizawa, MD, MSc, is a therapeutic endoscopist and clinical associate professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts related to this report.
The optimal surveillance endoscopic modality for gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is yet to be determined. Although the updated Sydney System, a comprehensive endoscopic biopsy protocol, has been advocated for GIM mapping, challenges are the heterogeneous distribution of GIM, suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy to detect GIM, and the cost burden of multiple biopsies.
This study by Lightdale et al. demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of obtaining cytology for the detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia by using a systemic endoscopy-guided high-pressure spray “power-wash” method. In this study, all cytophathology samples in nine subjects were deemed satisfactory for evaluation. All three subjects who were cytology positive for GIM on H&E stain and confirmed with positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed GIM on biopsy, and one subject had cells highly suspicious for dysplasia on cytology but biopsy was negative. Although all patients showed multiple superficial erosions after power-wash, bleeding was minimal and no adverse events related to power-wash were observed.
Applying cytology for detection of GIM appears promising as the way of collecting samples from the large surface area of the stomach. As clinicians, however, we are still left with some challenges. Even if cells collected are suspicious for dysplasia/neoplasia by this power-wash method, it would not be useful unless we precisely localize the area as we can not provide a focal curative endoscopic treatment. It is critical to increase the yield of localization of cytology sampling. Further research is also needed to standardize the cytopathologic diagnostic criteria of GIM and cost-effectiveness of the cytology-based approach compared to the current gold-standard biopsy protocol for the diagnosis of GIM.
Yutaka Tomizawa, MD, MSc, is a therapeutic endoscopist and clinical associate professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts related to this report.
The optimal surveillance endoscopic modality for gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is yet to be determined. Although the updated Sydney System, a comprehensive endoscopic biopsy protocol, has been advocated for GIM mapping, challenges are the heterogeneous distribution of GIM, suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of endoscopy to detect GIM, and the cost burden of multiple biopsies.
This study by Lightdale et al. demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of obtaining cytology for the detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia by using a systemic endoscopy-guided high-pressure spray “power-wash” method. In this study, all cytophathology samples in nine subjects were deemed satisfactory for evaluation. All three subjects who were cytology positive for GIM on H&E stain and confirmed with positive immunohistochemistry (IHC) showed GIM on biopsy, and one subject had cells highly suspicious for dysplasia on cytology but biopsy was negative. Although all patients showed multiple superficial erosions after power-wash, bleeding was minimal and no adverse events related to power-wash were observed.
Applying cytology for detection of GIM appears promising as the way of collecting samples from the large surface area of the stomach. As clinicians, however, we are still left with some challenges. Even if cells collected are suspicious for dysplasia/neoplasia by this power-wash method, it would not be useful unless we precisely localize the area as we can not provide a focal curative endoscopic treatment. It is critical to increase the yield of localization of cytology sampling. Further research is also needed to standardize the cytopathologic diagnostic criteria of GIM and cost-effectiveness of the cytology-based approach compared to the current gold-standard biopsy protocol for the diagnosis of GIM.
Yutaka Tomizawa, MD, MSc, is a therapeutic endoscopist and clinical associate professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle. He has no conflicts related to this report.
Power-washing is no longer just for blasting grimy driveways and stripping flaky paint. It’s good for work inside the gut, too.
In a proof-of-concept study, a “novel systematically directed high-pressure liquid spray,” delivered via the ERBEJET flexible probe, showed promise for collecting cytology specimens from the stomachs of patients undergoing endoscopy for gastric cancer screening or surveillance, reported lead author Charles J. Lightdale, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues.
“Systematic random biopsies (updated Sydney protocol) have been recommended to increase detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, random biopsies can be laborious, time consuming, costly, and susceptible to sampling error owing to the large surface area of the stomach.”
Power-washing, in contrast, with the pressure dial turned to 10 bar, involves spraying the gut in a systematic fashion “using sweeping and painting motions” to dislodge cells from the mucosa. These specimens are then suctioned from the resultant pools of liquid, mixed 1:1 with 10% formalin, and shipped to the lab.
Boom! Cytology!
Just to be sure, however, the nine patients involved in the study also underwent standard-of-care biopsy collection from areas of interest, followed by random sampling according to the updated Sydney protocol. Two of the patients were power-washed again 12 months later for endoscopic surveillance.
Power-washing added 7-10 minutes to standard endoscopy time and generated 60-100 mL of liquid for collection. Post suction, a closer look at the gastric mucosa revealed “scattered superficial erosions,” while blood loss was deemed “minimal.” The procedure appeared well tolerated, with no aspiration or esophageal reflux during endoscopy, or adverse events reported by patients after 1 week of follow-up.
Cytopathology samples were deemed satisfactory and yielded “multiple strips and large clusters of cells.” These were sufficient to diagnose GIM in three patients and reactive glandular changes with inflammation in one patient, with findings confirmed on biopsy. In contrast, the power-washed cells from one patient were “highly suspicious” for dysplasia, but biopsies were negative.
Although the study was too small for a reliable comparison with the Sydney protocol, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues concluded that the power-wash approach deserves further investigation.
“ and to reduce morbidity and mortality from gastric cancer,” they wrote.
The investigators predicted that power-washing is likely safe in most patients, although it may be unsuitable for those with noncorrectable coagulopathies or in patients who cannot stop anticoagulants. Postsurgical patients, on the other hand, should tolerate the procedure just fine.
Patients with risk of gastric cancer “might be an important group” for evaluating the power-wash procedure, the investigators wrote, noting that combining the approach with artificial intelligence could one day yield even better results.
In the meantime, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues — like so many weekend warriors wielding a power-washer — are going to see if a different nozzle will take their work to the next level.
“We are actively studying a catheter with a broader stream and the potential to increase efficiency and decrease procedure time,” they wrote. “Another catheter design might allow for simultaneous spray and suction, so that cytology samples from specific regions of the stomach could be separately analyzed.”
This study was funded by Dalio Philanthropies, the Price Family Foundation, and the Frederic and Patricia Salerno Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and others.
Power-washing is no longer just for blasting grimy driveways and stripping flaky paint. It’s good for work inside the gut, too.
In a proof-of-concept study, a “novel systematically directed high-pressure liquid spray,” delivered via the ERBEJET flexible probe, showed promise for collecting cytology specimens from the stomachs of patients undergoing endoscopy for gastric cancer screening or surveillance, reported lead author Charles J. Lightdale, MD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues.
“Systematic random biopsies (updated Sydney protocol) have been recommended to increase detection of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia,” the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, random biopsies can be laborious, time consuming, costly, and susceptible to sampling error owing to the large surface area of the stomach.”
Power-washing, in contrast, with the pressure dial turned to 10 bar, involves spraying the gut in a systematic fashion “using sweeping and painting motions” to dislodge cells from the mucosa. These specimens are then suctioned from the resultant pools of liquid, mixed 1:1 with 10% formalin, and shipped to the lab.
Boom! Cytology!
Just to be sure, however, the nine patients involved in the study also underwent standard-of-care biopsy collection from areas of interest, followed by random sampling according to the updated Sydney protocol. Two of the patients were power-washed again 12 months later for endoscopic surveillance.
Power-washing added 7-10 minutes to standard endoscopy time and generated 60-100 mL of liquid for collection. Post suction, a closer look at the gastric mucosa revealed “scattered superficial erosions,” while blood loss was deemed “minimal.” The procedure appeared well tolerated, with no aspiration or esophageal reflux during endoscopy, or adverse events reported by patients after 1 week of follow-up.
Cytopathology samples were deemed satisfactory and yielded “multiple strips and large clusters of cells.” These were sufficient to diagnose GIM in three patients and reactive glandular changes with inflammation in one patient, with findings confirmed on biopsy. In contrast, the power-washed cells from one patient were “highly suspicious” for dysplasia, but biopsies were negative.
Although the study was too small for a reliable comparison with the Sydney protocol, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues concluded that the power-wash approach deserves further investigation.
“ and to reduce morbidity and mortality from gastric cancer,” they wrote.
The investigators predicted that power-washing is likely safe in most patients, although it may be unsuitable for those with noncorrectable coagulopathies or in patients who cannot stop anticoagulants. Postsurgical patients, on the other hand, should tolerate the procedure just fine.
Patients with risk of gastric cancer “might be an important group” for evaluating the power-wash procedure, the investigators wrote, noting that combining the approach with artificial intelligence could one day yield even better results.
In the meantime, Dr. Lightdale and colleagues — like so many weekend warriors wielding a power-washer — are going to see if a different nozzle will take their work to the next level.
“We are actively studying a catheter with a broader stream and the potential to increase efficiency and decrease procedure time,” they wrote. “Another catheter design might allow for simultaneous spray and suction, so that cytology samples from specific regions of the stomach could be separately analyzed.”
This study was funded by Dalio Philanthropies, the Price Family Foundation, and the Frederic and Patricia Salerno Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Interscope, Medtronic, and others.
FROM TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Real-World HDV Study Characterizes Responses to Bulevirtide
, based on real-world experience.
These findings suggest that longer follow-up is needed to determine the optimal treatment duration for bulevirtide monotherapy, reported lead author Alexander Killer, MD, of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.
Bulevirtide was conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and is on track for full marketing approval in Europe, but it remains unavailable in the United States, where Gilead, the manufacturer, has faced regulatory hurdles.
In the MYR202 and 301 clinical trials, bulevirtide significantly reduced HDV-RNA levels in 54% of patients after 24 weeks, and reduced viremia while normalizing ALT in 48% of patients after 48 weeks.
“Given its standalone status and good treatment tolerance even in patients with compensated cirrhosis, this represents a step change in the treatment of HDV-coinfected individuals,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.
Yet dynamics of response and clinical predictors of treatment outcome remain unclear, prompting Dr. Killer and colleagues to conduct the present retrospective study. The dataset included 15 patients who received bulevirtide for at least 1 year at a single center in Germany.
The analysis focused on monthly changes in biochemical and virologic parameters. The investigators also screened for clinical factors that might predict responses to therapy.
Treatment response rate and safety profile aligned with data from clinical trials, suggesting that bulevirtide is safe and effective in a real-world setting.
Patients typically achieved ALT normalization 2-6 months into therapy, followed by virologic response at least 6 months after starting treatment, with one-third of patients requiring at least 1 year to achieve HDV-RNA negativity.
“Of note, normalization of ALT under bulevirtide treatment occurs earlier than the decline of HDV-RNA levels, which contrasts with the response seen to nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in hepatitis B,” the investigators wrote. They suggested that this may be due to bulevirtide’s distinct mechanism of action.
Severe hepatitis was associated with lower response rates in the first year. Possible predictors of delayed response included low body mass index and high alpha-fetoprotein.
Of note, two patients had ALT normalization without virologic response.
“It is unclear whether these patients actually have worse outcomes in terms of overall success than patients with a combined response, especially since these patients experienced a decline of more than 1 log,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote, noting that a 1 log reduction is considered an intermediate virologic response, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) studies have shown that severe liver events are prevented by early ALT normalization. “Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to categorize patients with biochemical responses as ‘treatment nonresponders’ [according to FDA criteria].”
The investigators called for longer observational studies to determine the optimal duration of bulevirtide monotherapy.
This study was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, GSK, AbbVie, and others.
, based on real-world experience.
These findings suggest that longer follow-up is needed to determine the optimal treatment duration for bulevirtide monotherapy, reported lead author Alexander Killer, MD, of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.
Bulevirtide was conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and is on track for full marketing approval in Europe, but it remains unavailable in the United States, where Gilead, the manufacturer, has faced regulatory hurdles.
In the MYR202 and 301 clinical trials, bulevirtide significantly reduced HDV-RNA levels in 54% of patients after 24 weeks, and reduced viremia while normalizing ALT in 48% of patients after 48 weeks.
“Given its standalone status and good treatment tolerance even in patients with compensated cirrhosis, this represents a step change in the treatment of HDV-coinfected individuals,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.
Yet dynamics of response and clinical predictors of treatment outcome remain unclear, prompting Dr. Killer and colleagues to conduct the present retrospective study. The dataset included 15 patients who received bulevirtide for at least 1 year at a single center in Germany.
The analysis focused on monthly changes in biochemical and virologic parameters. The investigators also screened for clinical factors that might predict responses to therapy.
Treatment response rate and safety profile aligned with data from clinical trials, suggesting that bulevirtide is safe and effective in a real-world setting.
Patients typically achieved ALT normalization 2-6 months into therapy, followed by virologic response at least 6 months after starting treatment, with one-third of patients requiring at least 1 year to achieve HDV-RNA negativity.
“Of note, normalization of ALT under bulevirtide treatment occurs earlier than the decline of HDV-RNA levels, which contrasts with the response seen to nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in hepatitis B,” the investigators wrote. They suggested that this may be due to bulevirtide’s distinct mechanism of action.
Severe hepatitis was associated with lower response rates in the first year. Possible predictors of delayed response included low body mass index and high alpha-fetoprotein.
Of note, two patients had ALT normalization without virologic response.
“It is unclear whether these patients actually have worse outcomes in terms of overall success than patients with a combined response, especially since these patients experienced a decline of more than 1 log,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote, noting that a 1 log reduction is considered an intermediate virologic response, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) studies have shown that severe liver events are prevented by early ALT normalization. “Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to categorize patients with biochemical responses as ‘treatment nonresponders’ [according to FDA criteria].”
The investigators called for longer observational studies to determine the optimal duration of bulevirtide monotherapy.
This study was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, GSK, AbbVie, and others.
, based on real-world experience.
These findings suggest that longer follow-up is needed to determine the optimal treatment duration for bulevirtide monotherapy, reported lead author Alexander Killer, MD, of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.
Bulevirtide was conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and is on track for full marketing approval in Europe, but it remains unavailable in the United States, where Gilead, the manufacturer, has faced regulatory hurdles.
In the MYR202 and 301 clinical trials, bulevirtide significantly reduced HDV-RNA levels in 54% of patients after 24 weeks, and reduced viremia while normalizing ALT in 48% of patients after 48 weeks.
“Given its standalone status and good treatment tolerance even in patients with compensated cirrhosis, this represents a step change in the treatment of HDV-coinfected individuals,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.
Yet dynamics of response and clinical predictors of treatment outcome remain unclear, prompting Dr. Killer and colleagues to conduct the present retrospective study. The dataset included 15 patients who received bulevirtide for at least 1 year at a single center in Germany.
The analysis focused on monthly changes in biochemical and virologic parameters. The investigators also screened for clinical factors that might predict responses to therapy.
Treatment response rate and safety profile aligned with data from clinical trials, suggesting that bulevirtide is safe and effective in a real-world setting.
Patients typically achieved ALT normalization 2-6 months into therapy, followed by virologic response at least 6 months after starting treatment, with one-third of patients requiring at least 1 year to achieve HDV-RNA negativity.
“Of note, normalization of ALT under bulevirtide treatment occurs earlier than the decline of HDV-RNA levels, which contrasts with the response seen to nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in hepatitis B,” the investigators wrote. They suggested that this may be due to bulevirtide’s distinct mechanism of action.
Severe hepatitis was associated with lower response rates in the first year. Possible predictors of delayed response included low body mass index and high alpha-fetoprotein.
Of note, two patients had ALT normalization without virologic response.
“It is unclear whether these patients actually have worse outcomes in terms of overall success than patients with a combined response, especially since these patients experienced a decline of more than 1 log,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote, noting that a 1 log reduction is considered an intermediate virologic response, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) studies have shown that severe liver events are prevented by early ALT normalization. “Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to categorize patients with biochemical responses as ‘treatment nonresponders’ [according to FDA criteria].”
The investigators called for longer observational studies to determine the optimal duration of bulevirtide monotherapy.
This study was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, GSK, AbbVie, and others.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Virtual Reality Brings Relief to Hospitalized Patients With Cancer
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
suggests a new randomized controlled trial.
While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.
“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
Study Methods and Results
Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.
“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”
The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.
“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.
Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.
“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
Downsides to Using VR
Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.
Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
Future VR Research
“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”
This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM CANCER
Should Opioids Be Used for Chronic Cancer Pain?
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.
These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.
“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?
Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.
“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.
These interviews yielded three themes.
First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.
“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.
Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.
“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”
The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.
“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”
Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:
“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”
Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?
After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.
They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.
Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.
FROM CANCER
Computer-Aided Colonoscopy Falls Short in Real-World Practice
, according to investigators.
Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”
RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.
The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.
“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”
This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.
CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).
“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.
While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.
Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).
Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.
“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”
Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.
“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.
This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.
The advent of AI in colonoscopy through computer-aided detection (CADe) systems has been promising, with over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affirming its benefits. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by several recent nonrandomized studies indicating no real-world advantage, as discussed in Patel et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
In addition, a critical consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using outdated versions of CADe.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of CADe for colonoscopy in a real-world setting. The definitive assessment of CADe’s real-world value necessitates larger, well-structured trials that mirror actual clinical environments and span extended periods of time, taking care to minimize biases that may have influenced the results of current published studies.
Nabil M. Mansour, MD, is assistant professor of medicine in the Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has served as a consultant for Iterative Health.
The advent of AI in colonoscopy through computer-aided detection (CADe) systems has been promising, with over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affirming its benefits. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by several recent nonrandomized studies indicating no real-world advantage, as discussed in Patel et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
In addition, a critical consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using outdated versions of CADe.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of CADe for colonoscopy in a real-world setting. The definitive assessment of CADe’s real-world value necessitates larger, well-structured trials that mirror actual clinical environments and span extended periods of time, taking care to minimize biases that may have influenced the results of current published studies.
Nabil M. Mansour, MD, is assistant professor of medicine in the Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has served as a consultant for Iterative Health.
The advent of AI in colonoscopy through computer-aided detection (CADe) systems has been promising, with over 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affirming its benefits. However, this enthusiasm has been tempered by several recent nonrandomized studies indicating no real-world advantage, as discussed in Patel et al.’s systematic review and meta-analysis in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
In addition, a critical consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using outdated versions of CADe.
In my opinion, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of CADe for colonoscopy in a real-world setting. The definitive assessment of CADe’s real-world value necessitates larger, well-structured trials that mirror actual clinical environments and span extended periods of time, taking care to minimize biases that may have influenced the results of current published studies.
Nabil M. Mansour, MD, is assistant professor of medicine in the Section of Gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He has served as a consultant for Iterative Health.
, according to investigators.
Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”
RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.
The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.
“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”
This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.
CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).
“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.
While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.
Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).
Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.
“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”
Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.
“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.
This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.
, according to investigators.
Although CADe did not increase burden of colonoscopy in the real-world, these real-world detection rates casts doubt on the generalizability of positive findings from randomized trials, reported lead author Harsh K. Patel, MD, of the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, and colleagues.
CADe-assisted colonoscopy has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve ADR, particularly with the recent publication of a meta-analysis involving 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Dr. Patel and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “However, results of RCTs are not necessarily reproducible in clinical practice.”
RCTs evaluating this technology are susceptible to various issues with validity, they noted, such as psychological bias stemming from lack of blinding to the possibility that CADe could reduce operator attention, paradoxically “deskilling” endoscopists.
The present meta-analysis aimed to overcome these potential shortfalls by analyzing nonrandomized data from eight studies involving 9,782 patients.
“The lack of a highly controlled setting reduces the psychological pressure of the endoscopists to demonstrate a possible benefit of CADe (i.e., the operator bias) and allows endoscopists to use CADe according to their preferences and attitudes which we usually experience in a real-world clinical practice,” the investigators wrote. “On the other hand, noncontrolled factors may affect the outcome of the study, especially when considering that an equivalent distribution of prevalence of disease is required for a fair assessment of the effectiveness of the intervention.”
This approach revealed less favorable outcomes than those reported by RCTs.
CADe-assisted ADR was not significantly different from ADR for standard colonoscopy (44% vs 38%; risk ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97-1.28), nor was mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (0.93 vs 0.79; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.04-0.32).
“Our study provides a contrasting perspective to those results previously known from the randomized studies,” the investigators wrote.
While detection benefits were not identified, burden of CADe-assisted colonoscopy was not elevated either.
Mean nonneoplastic lesions per colonoscopy was similar between modalities (0.52 vs 0.47; mean difference, 0.14; 95% CI, -0.07-0.34), as was withdrawal time (14.3 vs 13.4 minutes; mean difference, 0.8 minutes; 95% CI, -0.18-1.90).
Dr. Patel and colleagues described “a high level of heterogeneity that was qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from the heterogeneity discovered in the prior meta-analysis of RCTs.” Unlike the RCT meta-analysis, which had no studies with an ADR outcome favoring the control arm, the present meta-analysis found that one third of the included studies favored the control arm.
“This qualitative difference generates a much higher degree of ambiguity, as it does not apply only to the magnitude of the effect of CADe, but it puts in question the actual existence of any CADe-related benefit,” they wrote. “An important point to make is that the analysis of adenoma and serrated lesions per colonoscopy supported the qualitative heterogeneity, favoring the control arm over the CADe arm, in the direction of the effect.”
Dr. Patel and colleagues suggested that the concurrent lack of benefit and lack of harm associated with CADe in the present meta-analysis is “interesting,” and may point to underutilization or a lack of effect of CADe.
“To address the uncertainties in the current literature, we recommend conducting additional randomized studies in a more pragmatic setting,” they concluded.
This meta-analysis was supported by the European Commission and AIRC. The investigators disclosed relationships with NEC, Satisfy, Odin, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Most Cancer Trial Centers Located Closer to White, Affluent Populations
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
This inequity may be potentiating the underrepresentation of racially minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in clinical trials, suggesting that employment of satellite hospitals is needed to expand access to investigational therapies, reported lead author Hassal Lee, MD, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, and colleagues.
“Minoritized and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are underrepresented in clinical trials,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology. “This may reduce the generalizability of trial results and propagate health disparities. Contributors to inequitable trial participation include individual-level factors and structural factors.”
Specifically, travel time to trial centers, as well as socioeconomic deprivation, can reduce likelihood of trial participation.
“Data on these parameters and population data on self-identified race exist, but their interrelation with clinical research facilities has not been systematically analyzed,” they wrote.
To try to draw comparisons between the distribution of patients of different races and socioeconomic statuses and the locations of clinical research facilities, Dr. Lee and colleagues aggregated data from the US Census, National Trial registry, Nature Index of Cancer Research Health Institutions, OpenStreetMap, National Cancer Institute–designated Cancer Centers list, and National Homeland Infrastructure Foundation. They then characterized catchment population demographics within 30-, 60-, and 120-minute driving commute times of all US hospitals, along with a more focused look at centers capable of conducting phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 trials.
These efforts revealed broad geographic inequity.The 78 major centers that conduct 94% of all US cancer trials are located within 30 minutes of populations that have a 10.1% higher proportion of self-identified White individuals than the average US county, and a median income $18,900 higher than average (unpaired mean differences).
The publication also includes several maps characterizing racial and socioeconomic demographics within various catchment areas. For example, centers in New York City, Houston, and Chicago have the most diverse catchment populations within a 30-minute commute. Maps of all cities in the United States with populations greater than 500,000 are available in a supplementary index.
“This study indicates that geographical population distributions may present barriers to equitable clinical trial access and that data are available to proactively strategize about reduction of such barriers,” Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.
The findings call attention to modifiable socioeconomic factors associated with trial participation, they added, like financial toxicity and affordable transportation, noting that ethnic and racial groups consent to trials at similar rates after controlling for income.
In addition, Dr. Lee and colleagues advised clinical trial designers to enlist satellite hospitals to increase participant diversity, since long commutes exacerbate “socioeconomic burdens associated with clinical trial participation,” with trial participation decreasing as commute time increases.
“Existing clinical trial centers may build collaborative efforts with nearby hospitals closer to underrepresented populations or set up community centers to support new collaborative networks to improve geographical access equity,” they wrote. “Methodologically, our approach is transferable to any country, region, or global effort with sufficient source data and can inform decision-making along the continuum of cancer care, from screening to implementing specialist care.”
A coauthor disclosed relationships with Flagship Therapeutics, Leidos Holding Ltd, Pershing Square Foundation, and others.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY