GI and Hepatology News

More than one in five of new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal dietary intake, according to a recent study.

Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.

 

“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.

The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.

The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.

The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.

Among the study’s specific findings:

• In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
• Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
• Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.

Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”

 

A Modifiable Risk Factor

Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.

“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”

In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.

By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).

As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.

Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.

And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”

In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one in five of new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal dietary intake, according to a recent study.

Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.

 

“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.

The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.

The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.

The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.

Among the study’s specific findings:

• In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
• Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
• Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.

Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”

 

A Modifiable Risk Factor

Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.

“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”

In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.

By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).

As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.

Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.

And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”

In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one in five of new gastrointestinal (GI) cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal dietary intake, according to a recent study.

Writing in Gastroenterology, researchers led by Li Liu, PhD, of the department of epidemiology and biostatistics, Ministry of Education Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, reported that excessive consumption of processed meats (the biggest culprit), insufficient fruit intake, and insufficient whole grain intake were the leading dietary risk factors. In addition, the number of diet-related cases doubled from 1990 to 2018.

 

“In regions with limited access to healthy foods, policy interventions like taxing unhealthy foods and subsidizing nutritious options may help shift dietary patterns and reduce cancer risk,” Liu said in an interview.

The study examined meta-analyses from 184 countries in seven regions for the period 1990-2018 looking at rates of six major GI cancers: colorectal, liver, esophageal, pancreatic, and gallbladder/biliary tract. Among these, the age-standardized incidence of liver, pancreatic, and colorectal increased significantly over the past 3 decades.

The research team used a comparative risk assessment model to estimate the impact of diet on GI cancer independent of energy intake and adiposity. Although the principal dietary risk factors varied across individual cancers, suboptimal intake of the three aforementioned components was responsible for 66.51% of all diet-attributable GI cancers in 2018. The global mean processed meat consumption was 17 g/d in 2018, falling to a low in South Asia of 3 g/d.

The investigators also found diet-linked cancer incidence positively correlated with the Sociodemographic Index (SDI), an integrated measure of national development, income, and fertility. Incidence varied across world regions, with the highest proportion of cases in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and in high-income countries. The findings support the development of targeted diet-related public health interventions in various regions and nations to reduce GI cancer incidence, the authors wrote.

Among the study’s specific findings:

• In 2018, 21.5% (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 19.1-24.5) of incident GI cancer cases globally were attributable to suboptimal diets, a relatively stable proportion since 1990 (22.4%; 95% UI, 19.7-25.6).
• Absolute diet-attributable cases doubled from 580,862 (95% UI, 510,658-664,076) in 1990 to 1,039,877 (95% UI, 923,482-1,187,244) in 2018.
• Excessive processed meat consumption (5.9%; 95% UI, 4.2%-7.9%), insufficient fruit intake (4.8%; 95% UI, 3.8%-5.9%), and insufficient whole grain intake (3.6%; 95% UI, 2.8%-5.1%) were the most significant dietary risk factors in 2018 — a shift from 1990 when the third major concern was insufficient non-starchy vegetable intake.

Given the well-established link between diet and GI cancers, the incidence findings came as no surprise. “However, the dramatic doubling of diet-attributable cases over the past few decades was truly unexpected,” Liu said. “This increase can likely be attributed to global population growth and aging. While aging is an irreversible process, we can still reduce the growing burden of diet-related GI cancers by focusing on modifiable behaviors, particularly through targeted dietary interventions.”

 

A Modifiable Risk Factor

Commenting on the analysis but not involved in it, Andrew T. Chan, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, noted that his own group’s studies also support the association of diet with an increased risk for GI cancers, particularly colorectal cancers.

“Although much work needs to be done to clarify the precise mechanisms underlying this association, there are substantial data that diet may cause changes in the gut microbiome, which in turn promotes cancer,” Chan said in an interview. “Going forward, we are working to develop strategies in which diet is modified to mitigate the risk of cancer associated with suboptimal diets.”

In other study findings, Liu’s group observed that two regional groups, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean, as well as high-income countries, bore the top three diet-attributable burdens worldwide in 2018, all driven mostly by an upward-trending excess of processed meat.

By regions, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia experienced the highest attributable burden across regions in 1990 (31.6%; UI, 27.0%-37.4%) and 2018 (31.6%; UI, 27.3%-36.5%).

As for the impact of the SDI, the authors explained that diet-attributable GI cancer burden was higher among adults with higher education and living in urban areas than among those with lower education and rural residency. “Some dietary habits tended to be worse in higher-SDI countries, specifically, higher consumption of processed meats,” they wrote.

Although the proportional attributable GI incidence remains relatively stable, they added, the doubling of absolute cases from 1990 to 2018, along with the discrepancies between urbanicity and countries/regions, supports more targeted preventive measures.

And while the diet-GI cancer connection is clear, they agreed with Chan in that “the precise pathogenesis from suboptimal diets to these cancers remains unclear and requires further basic studies to clarify the mechanism.”

In the meantime, the findings “underscore the urgent need for proactive public health interventions. Diet, as a modifiable risk factor, still offers substantial potential for improvement,” Liu said.

This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the American Cancer Society. The authors and Chan disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including new biologics approved for treatment and the elimination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for diagnosis, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

As an update to the 2013 version, the guideline covers paradigm-shifting changes in EoE knowledge about risk factors, pathogenesis, validated outcome metrics, new nomenclature, and pediatric-specific considerations.

 

“There have been multiple advances across diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and other aspects of EoE management in the decade since the last ACG guidelines and in the 5 years since the last AGA [American Gastroenterological Association] guidelines, including new drug approvals globally for EoE,” said lead author Evan Dellon, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

“The guidelines aimed to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations that could be implemented in daily practice, as well as to provide advice on a number of aspects of diagnosis and management of EoE where there might not be a definitive evidence base, but where clinical questions commonly arise,” he said.

The update was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

EoE Diagnosis

EoE is a chronic allergen-induced, type 2 immune-mediated disease of the esophagus, which is characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (such as dysphagia and food impaction) and an eosinophilic predominant infiltrate in the esophagus, the authors wrote.

A diagnosis should be based on the presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, particularly after ruling out non-EoE disorders. A critical change from the 2013 guideline eliminates the requirement of a PPI trial for diagnosis.

Endoscopic evaluation is critical for diagnosis, assessing treatment response, and long-term monitoring, the authors wrote. The guideline advises using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) to characterize endoscopic findings, a recommendation that was also endorsed in 2022 guidelines by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EREFS classifies five key EoE features, including edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures, by severity.

To assess for histologic features of EoE, at least six esophageal biopsies should be taken from at least two esophageal levels (such as proximal/mid and distal halves), specifically targeted in areas of furrows or exudates.

In addition, peak eosinophil counts should be quantified on esophageal biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE, which will help with subsequent management and monitoring.

As new research expands on the role of mast cells, T cells, basophils, NK cells, and fibroblasts in EoE, the authors postulate that using the EoE histologic scoring system may become more relevant in the future, particularly around findings such as persistent basal zone hyperplasia or lamina propria fibrosis as drivers of ongoing symptoms when eosinophil counts decline.

 

A Better Understanding of Pathogenesis 

“While EoE is considered a relatively new disease, there has been a concerted effort by researchers and clinicians to work together, in partnership with patients, to better understand the basic disease pathogenesis and develop the best treatment approaches,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. Rothenberg wasn’t involved with the update.

“A lot of progress has been made since the initial thought that esophageal eosinophilia was a ramification of acid reflux disease,” said Rothenberg, the founding director and a principal investigator of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.

“We now understand that the esophagus is an immune-responsive organ and that food allergies can be manifested as EoE. Investment in science is paying off as the basic disease pathoetiology has been uncovered, and this has led to successful strategies for disease intervention, including precision therapy.”

When treating EoE, the goals include improving patient symptoms and quality of life, improving endoscopic and histologic findings, normalizing growth and development in children, maintaining nutrition, and preventing complications such as food impaction or perforation.

This means addressing both the inflammatory and fibrostenotic aspects of the disease, the authors wrote. Pharmacologic or dietary therapies can treat the inflammatory component and may lead to esophageal improvements, whereas esophageal dilation can treat strictures and luminal narrowing. Notably, treatment choices should be individualized based on disease characteristics and patient preferences.

In general, PPIs are suggested as treatment, even beyond reflux symptoms. In EoE, PPIs can decrease eotaxin-3 cytokines that recruit eosinophils to the esophagus, improve esophageal barrier function, and maintain esophageal epithelial transcriptional homeostasis. Although potassium-competitive acid blocker medications have been studied in EoE, data remains limited. H2 receptor blockers don’t appear to be effective for EoE.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids have shown histologic efficacy, the authors reported, particularly in recent phase 3 trials of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) and budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT). BOS was approved for EoE by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024, and BOT was approved for EoE by the European Medicines Agency in 2018.

In terms of dietary elimination, a range of options appear to be effective for patients, including the six-food elimination diet, which has been studied most. However, less restrictive or step-up approaches (such as four-food elimination or one-food elimination of milk) may be better for patients, the authors wrote. Ultimately, the “optimal” choice is one that patients and families can adhere to and have the resources to complete.

In addition, they noted that allergy test-directed elimination diets aren’t currently recommended because EoE has delayed hypersensitivity, so skin prick, patch, or serum Ig allergy tests tend to have limited success in predicting EoE food triggers.

In terms of biologic treatments, dupilumab is recommended for ages 12 years or older who don’t respond to PPI therapy, as well as suggested for ages 1-11 years based on previous clinical trial data. The FDA approved the use of dupilumab for ages 1-11 years in February 2024.

In this update, the authors declined to make recommendations about other biologics such as cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. They also advised against using omaluzumab as a treatment for EoE.

 

“This new 2025 guideline summarizes and synthesizes key studies in support of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, dietary therapy, and biologics for EoE. Additionally, the guidelines are clinically relevant in providing practical suggestions (such as medication dosing) and expert opinions on key concepts in managing EoE,” said Joy Weiling Chang, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“It’s an exciting time to take care of patients with EoE with many new therapies, but the rapidly evolving options can be overwhelming,” said Chang, who wasn’t involved with the update. “Since there are no clinical effectiveness studies between the various treatments, and therapies can differ so much (with delivery and daily use, monitoring, cost), electing EoE treatment is an ideal opportunity for shared decision-making. Equipped with these clinical guidelines, clinicians can be empowered to elicit and consider patient preferences and values in the management of this chronic disease.”

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Dellon and Rothenberg reported receiving research funding and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including new biologics approved for treatment and the elimination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for diagnosis, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

As an update to the 2013 version, the guideline covers paradigm-shifting changes in EoE knowledge about risk factors, pathogenesis, validated outcome metrics, new nomenclature, and pediatric-specific considerations.

 

“There have been multiple advances across diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and other aspects of EoE management in the decade since the last ACG guidelines and in the 5 years since the last AGA [American Gastroenterological Association] guidelines, including new drug approvals globally for EoE,” said lead author Evan Dellon, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

“The guidelines aimed to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations that could be implemented in daily practice, as well as to provide advice on a number of aspects of diagnosis and management of EoE where there might not be a definitive evidence base, but where clinical questions commonly arise,” he said.

The update was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

EoE Diagnosis

EoE is a chronic allergen-induced, type 2 immune-mediated disease of the esophagus, which is characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (such as dysphagia and food impaction) and an eosinophilic predominant infiltrate in the esophagus, the authors wrote.

A diagnosis should be based on the presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, particularly after ruling out non-EoE disorders. A critical change from the 2013 guideline eliminates the requirement of a PPI trial for diagnosis.

Endoscopic evaluation is critical for diagnosis, assessing treatment response, and long-term monitoring, the authors wrote. The guideline advises using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) to characterize endoscopic findings, a recommendation that was also endorsed in 2022 guidelines by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EREFS classifies five key EoE features, including edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures, by severity.

To assess for histologic features of EoE, at least six esophageal biopsies should be taken from at least two esophageal levels (such as proximal/mid and distal halves), specifically targeted in areas of furrows or exudates.

In addition, peak eosinophil counts should be quantified on esophageal biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE, which will help with subsequent management and monitoring.

As new research expands on the role of mast cells, T cells, basophils, NK cells, and fibroblasts in EoE, the authors postulate that using the EoE histologic scoring system may become more relevant in the future, particularly around findings such as persistent basal zone hyperplasia or lamina propria fibrosis as drivers of ongoing symptoms when eosinophil counts decline.

 

A Better Understanding of Pathogenesis 

“While EoE is considered a relatively new disease, there has been a concerted effort by researchers and clinicians to work together, in partnership with patients, to better understand the basic disease pathogenesis and develop the best treatment approaches,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. Rothenberg wasn’t involved with the update.

“A lot of progress has been made since the initial thought that esophageal eosinophilia was a ramification of acid reflux disease,” said Rothenberg, the founding director and a principal investigator of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.

“We now understand that the esophagus is an immune-responsive organ and that food allergies can be manifested as EoE. Investment in science is paying off as the basic disease pathoetiology has been uncovered, and this has led to successful strategies for disease intervention, including precision therapy.”

When treating EoE, the goals include improving patient symptoms and quality of life, improving endoscopic and histologic findings, normalizing growth and development in children, maintaining nutrition, and preventing complications such as food impaction or perforation.

This means addressing both the inflammatory and fibrostenotic aspects of the disease, the authors wrote. Pharmacologic or dietary therapies can treat the inflammatory component and may lead to esophageal improvements, whereas esophageal dilation can treat strictures and luminal narrowing. Notably, treatment choices should be individualized based on disease characteristics and patient preferences.

In general, PPIs are suggested as treatment, even beyond reflux symptoms. In EoE, PPIs can decrease eotaxin-3 cytokines that recruit eosinophils to the esophagus, improve esophageal barrier function, and maintain esophageal epithelial transcriptional homeostasis. Although potassium-competitive acid blocker medications have been studied in EoE, data remains limited. H2 receptor blockers don’t appear to be effective for EoE.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids have shown histologic efficacy, the authors reported, particularly in recent phase 3 trials of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) and budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT). BOS was approved for EoE by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024, and BOT was approved for EoE by the European Medicines Agency in 2018.

In terms of dietary elimination, a range of options appear to be effective for patients, including the six-food elimination diet, which has been studied most. However, less restrictive or step-up approaches (such as four-food elimination or one-food elimination of milk) may be better for patients, the authors wrote. Ultimately, the “optimal” choice is one that patients and families can adhere to and have the resources to complete.

In addition, they noted that allergy test-directed elimination diets aren’t currently recommended because EoE has delayed hypersensitivity, so skin prick, patch, or serum Ig allergy tests tend to have limited success in predicting EoE food triggers.

In terms of biologic treatments, dupilumab is recommended for ages 12 years or older who don’t respond to PPI therapy, as well as suggested for ages 1-11 years based on previous clinical trial data. The FDA approved the use of dupilumab for ages 1-11 years in February 2024.

In this update, the authors declined to make recommendations about other biologics such as cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. They also advised against using omaluzumab as a treatment for EoE.

 

“This new 2025 guideline summarizes and synthesizes key studies in support of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, dietary therapy, and biologics for EoE. Additionally, the guidelines are clinically relevant in providing practical suggestions (such as medication dosing) and expert opinions on key concepts in managing EoE,” said Joy Weiling Chang, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“It’s an exciting time to take care of patients with EoE with many new therapies, but the rapidly evolving options can be overwhelming,” said Chang, who wasn’t involved with the update. “Since there are no clinical effectiveness studies between the various treatments, and therapies can differ so much (with delivery and daily use, monitoring, cost), electing EoE treatment is an ideal opportunity for shared decision-making. Equipped with these clinical guidelines, clinicians can be empowered to elicit and consider patient preferences and values in the management of this chronic disease.”

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Dellon and Rothenberg reported receiving research funding and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including new biologics approved for treatment and the elimination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for diagnosis, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

As an update to the 2013 version, the guideline covers paradigm-shifting changes in EoE knowledge about risk factors, pathogenesis, validated outcome metrics, new nomenclature, and pediatric-specific considerations.

 

“There have been multiple advances across diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and other aspects of EoE management in the decade since the last ACG guidelines and in the 5 years since the last AGA [American Gastroenterological Association] guidelines, including new drug approvals globally for EoE,” said lead author Evan Dellon, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

“The guidelines aimed to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations that could be implemented in daily practice, as well as to provide advice on a number of aspects of diagnosis and management of EoE where there might not be a definitive evidence base, but where clinical questions commonly arise,” he said.

The update was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

EoE Diagnosis

EoE is a chronic allergen-induced, type 2 immune-mediated disease of the esophagus, which is characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (such as dysphagia and food impaction) and an eosinophilic predominant infiltrate in the esophagus, the authors wrote.

A diagnosis should be based on the presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, particularly after ruling out non-EoE disorders. A critical change from the 2013 guideline eliminates the requirement of a PPI trial for diagnosis.

Endoscopic evaluation is critical for diagnosis, assessing treatment response, and long-term monitoring, the authors wrote. The guideline advises using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) to characterize endoscopic findings, a recommendation that was also endorsed in 2022 guidelines by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EREFS classifies five key EoE features, including edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures, by severity.

To assess for histologic features of EoE, at least six esophageal biopsies should be taken from at least two esophageal levels (such as proximal/mid and distal halves), specifically targeted in areas of furrows or exudates.

In addition, peak eosinophil counts should be quantified on esophageal biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE, which will help with subsequent management and monitoring.

As new research expands on the role of mast cells, T cells, basophils, NK cells, and fibroblasts in EoE, the authors postulate that using the EoE histologic scoring system may become more relevant in the future, particularly around findings such as persistent basal zone hyperplasia or lamina propria fibrosis as drivers of ongoing symptoms when eosinophil counts decline.

 

A Better Understanding of Pathogenesis 

“While EoE is considered a relatively new disease, there has been a concerted effort by researchers and clinicians to work together, in partnership with patients, to better understand the basic disease pathogenesis and develop the best treatment approaches,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. Rothenberg wasn’t involved with the update.

“A lot of progress has been made since the initial thought that esophageal eosinophilia was a ramification of acid reflux disease,” said Rothenberg, the founding director and a principal investigator of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.

“We now understand that the esophagus is an immune-responsive organ and that food allergies can be manifested as EoE. Investment in science is paying off as the basic disease pathoetiology has been uncovered, and this has led to successful strategies for disease intervention, including precision therapy.”

When treating EoE, the goals include improving patient symptoms and quality of life, improving endoscopic and histologic findings, normalizing growth and development in children, maintaining nutrition, and preventing complications such as food impaction or perforation.

This means addressing both the inflammatory and fibrostenotic aspects of the disease, the authors wrote. Pharmacologic or dietary therapies can treat the inflammatory component and may lead to esophageal improvements, whereas esophageal dilation can treat strictures and luminal narrowing. Notably, treatment choices should be individualized based on disease characteristics and patient preferences.

In general, PPIs are suggested as treatment, even beyond reflux symptoms. In EoE, PPIs can decrease eotaxin-3 cytokines that recruit eosinophils to the esophagus, improve esophageal barrier function, and maintain esophageal epithelial transcriptional homeostasis. Although potassium-competitive acid blocker medications have been studied in EoE, data remains limited. H2 receptor blockers don’t appear to be effective for EoE.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids have shown histologic efficacy, the authors reported, particularly in recent phase 3 trials of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) and budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT). BOS was approved for EoE by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024, and BOT was approved for EoE by the European Medicines Agency in 2018.

In terms of dietary elimination, a range of options appear to be effective for patients, including the six-food elimination diet, which has been studied most. However, less restrictive or step-up approaches (such as four-food elimination or one-food elimination of milk) may be better for patients, the authors wrote. Ultimately, the “optimal” choice is one that patients and families can adhere to and have the resources to complete.

In addition, they noted that allergy test-directed elimination diets aren’t currently recommended because EoE has delayed hypersensitivity, so skin prick, patch, or serum Ig allergy tests tend to have limited success in predicting EoE food triggers.

In terms of biologic treatments, dupilumab is recommended for ages 12 years or older who don’t respond to PPI therapy, as well as suggested for ages 1-11 years based on previous clinical trial data. The FDA approved the use of dupilumab for ages 1-11 years in February 2024.

In this update, the authors declined to make recommendations about other biologics such as cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. They also advised against using omaluzumab as a treatment for EoE.

 

“This new 2025 guideline summarizes and synthesizes key studies in support of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, dietary therapy, and biologics for EoE. Additionally, the guidelines are clinically relevant in providing practical suggestions (such as medication dosing) and expert opinions on key concepts in managing EoE,” said Joy Weiling Chang, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“It’s an exciting time to take care of patients with EoE with many new therapies, but the rapidly evolving options can be overwhelming,” said Chang, who wasn’t involved with the update. “Since there are no clinical effectiveness studies between the various treatments, and therapies can differ so much (with delivery and daily use, monitoring, cost), electing EoE treatment is an ideal opportunity for shared decision-making. Equipped with these clinical guidelines, clinicians can be empowered to elicit and consider patient preferences and values in the management of this chronic disease.”

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Dellon and Rothenberg reported receiving research funding and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who ate more plant-based and less meat-based foods — whether on a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diet — had more favorable microbiome compositions than those who did not follow a healthy dietary pattern, new research suggested.

For example, red meat was a strong driver of omnivore microbiomes, with corresponding signature microbes that are negatively correlated with host cardiometabolic health.

In contrast, the signature microbes found in vegans’ gut microbiomes were correlated with favorable cardiometabolic markers and were enriched in omnivores who ate more plant-based foods.

“From the viewpoint of the impact of diet on the gut microbiome, what seems to be more important is the diversity of healthy plant-based foods that are consumed,” principal author Nicola Segata, PhD, University of Trento in Italy, said in an interview. “Whether this comes within a vegan or an omnivore diet is less crucial, as long as there is no specific overconsumption of unhealthy food categories, such as red meat.”

Excluding broad categories of foods also can have consequences, he added. “For example, we saw that the exclusion of dairy fermented foods is associated with decreased presence of potentially probiotic microbes that are constitutive of such foods. Avoiding meat or dairy products does not necessarily have a positive effect if it does not come with a variety of quality plant-based products.”

The study was published online in Nature Microbiology.

 

Diet Tied to Microbial Signature

The researchers analyzed biological samples from 21,561 individuals across five multi-national cohorts to map how differences in diet patterns (omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan) are reflected in gut microbiomes.

They found that the three diet patterns are highly distinguishable by their microbial profiles and that each diet has corresponding unique signature microbes, including those tied to digestion of specific types of food and sometimes those derived from food itself.

The microbiomes of omnivores had an increased presence of bacteria associated with meat digestion, such as Alistipes putredinis, which is involved in protein fermentation. Omnivores also had more bacteria associated with both inflammatory bowel disease and increased colon cancer risk, such as Ruminococcus torques and Bilophila wadsworthia.

The microbiomes of vegans had an abundance of bacteria involved in fiber fermentation, such as several species of Bacteroides and Firmicutes phyla, which help produce short-chain fatty acids. These compounds have beneficial effects on gut health by reducing inflammation and helping to maintain a better homeostatic balance between an individual’s metabolism and immune system.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans was the presence in vegetarians’ microbiomes of Streptococcus thermophilus, a bacterium found mainly in dairy products and used in the production of yogurt.

Dietary factors within each diet pattern, such as the amount of plant-based food, shape the microbiome more than the type of diet and are important for gut health, according to the authors. For example, by eating more plant-based foods, people with an omnivorous diet can bring the proportion of beneficial signature microbes in their microbiomes more in line with the levels in people who are vegan or vegetarian.

“Since our data showed that omnivores on average ingest significantly fewer healthy plant-based foods than vegetarians or vegans, optimizing the quality of omnivore diets by increasing dietary plant diversity could lead to better gut health,” they wrote.

The ultimate goal, Segata said, is “a precision nutrition approach that recommends foods based on the configuration of the microbiome of patients and of the aspects of the microbiome one wants to enhance. We are not there yet, but it is nonetheless important to know which foods are usually boosting which types of members of the gut microbiome.”

His team is currently analyzing changes in the gut microbiome induced by diet changes among thousands of participants in various cohorts.

“This is one of the next steps toward unraveling causality along the diet-microbiome-health axis, together with the cultivation of specific microbiome members of interest for potential prebiotic and probiotic strategies,” he said.

 

Conventional Dietary Advice for Now

The findings are consistent with those of previous studies, Jack Gilbert, MD, director of the Microbiome and Metagenomics Center at the University of California, San Diego, and president of Applied Microbiology International, Cambridge, England, said in an interview.

“Future research needs to focus on whether the gut microbial signature can predict those that develop cardiovascular disease in each cohort — ie, the n-of-1 studies, whereby a vegan develops cardiovascular disease, or a carnivore does not,” said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

With more data, he said, “we can also start examining these trends over time to understand what might be going on with these ‘oddballs.’ ”

“There is not much you can do with the ‘eat a healthy balanced diet’ routine,” he noted. “If I got a microbiome signature, I could potentially tell you what to eat to optimize your blood glucose trends and your lipid panels but not to handle long-term disease risk, yet. So sticking with the guideline-recommended dietary advice seems best, until we can provide more nuanced advice for the patient.

“Importantly, I would also like to see time-resolved data,” he added. “Signatures can fluctuate over time, even over days, and so collecting a few weeks of stool samples would help us to better align the microbiome signatures to clinical endpoints.”

Segata is a consultant to and receives options from ZOE. Gilbert is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Holobiome, BiomeSense, EcoBiomics Canadian Research Program, MASTER EU, Sun Genomics, and Oath; the editorial advisory board for The Scientist; and the external advisory board for the Binational Early Asthma & Microbiome Study. He is also an adviser for Bened Life.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who ate more plant-based and less meat-based foods — whether on a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diet — had more favorable microbiome compositions than those who did not follow a healthy dietary pattern, new research suggested.

For example, red meat was a strong driver of omnivore microbiomes, with corresponding signature microbes that are negatively correlated with host cardiometabolic health.

In contrast, the signature microbes found in vegans’ gut microbiomes were correlated with favorable cardiometabolic markers and were enriched in omnivores who ate more plant-based foods.

“From the viewpoint of the impact of diet on the gut microbiome, what seems to be more important is the diversity of healthy plant-based foods that are consumed,” principal author Nicola Segata, PhD, University of Trento in Italy, said in an interview. “Whether this comes within a vegan or an omnivore diet is less crucial, as long as there is no specific overconsumption of unhealthy food categories, such as red meat.”

Excluding broad categories of foods also can have consequences, he added. “For example, we saw that the exclusion of dairy fermented foods is associated with decreased presence of potentially probiotic microbes that are constitutive of such foods. Avoiding meat or dairy products does not necessarily have a positive effect if it does not come with a variety of quality plant-based products.”

The study was published online in Nature Microbiology.

 

Diet Tied to Microbial Signature

The researchers analyzed biological samples from 21,561 individuals across five multi-national cohorts to map how differences in diet patterns (omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan) are reflected in gut microbiomes.

They found that the three diet patterns are highly distinguishable by their microbial profiles and that each diet has corresponding unique signature microbes, including those tied to digestion of specific types of food and sometimes those derived from food itself.

The microbiomes of omnivores had an increased presence of bacteria associated with meat digestion, such as Alistipes putredinis, which is involved in protein fermentation. Omnivores also had more bacteria associated with both inflammatory bowel disease and increased colon cancer risk, such as Ruminococcus torques and Bilophila wadsworthia.

The microbiomes of vegans had an abundance of bacteria involved in fiber fermentation, such as several species of Bacteroides and Firmicutes phyla, which help produce short-chain fatty acids. These compounds have beneficial effects on gut health by reducing inflammation and helping to maintain a better homeostatic balance between an individual’s metabolism and immune system.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans was the presence in vegetarians’ microbiomes of Streptococcus thermophilus, a bacterium found mainly in dairy products and used in the production of yogurt.

Dietary factors within each diet pattern, such as the amount of plant-based food, shape the microbiome more than the type of diet and are important for gut health, according to the authors. For example, by eating more plant-based foods, people with an omnivorous diet can bring the proportion of beneficial signature microbes in their microbiomes more in line with the levels in people who are vegan or vegetarian.

“Since our data showed that omnivores on average ingest significantly fewer healthy plant-based foods than vegetarians or vegans, optimizing the quality of omnivore diets by increasing dietary plant diversity could lead to better gut health,” they wrote.

The ultimate goal, Segata said, is “a precision nutrition approach that recommends foods based on the configuration of the microbiome of patients and of the aspects of the microbiome one wants to enhance. We are not there yet, but it is nonetheless important to know which foods are usually boosting which types of members of the gut microbiome.”

His team is currently analyzing changes in the gut microbiome induced by diet changes among thousands of participants in various cohorts.

“This is one of the next steps toward unraveling causality along the diet-microbiome-health axis, together with the cultivation of specific microbiome members of interest for potential prebiotic and probiotic strategies,” he said.

 

Conventional Dietary Advice for Now

The findings are consistent with those of previous studies, Jack Gilbert, MD, director of the Microbiome and Metagenomics Center at the University of California, San Diego, and president of Applied Microbiology International, Cambridge, England, said in an interview.

“Future research needs to focus on whether the gut microbial signature can predict those that develop cardiovascular disease in each cohort — ie, the n-of-1 studies, whereby a vegan develops cardiovascular disease, or a carnivore does not,” said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

With more data, he said, “we can also start examining these trends over time to understand what might be going on with these ‘oddballs.’ ”

“There is not much you can do with the ‘eat a healthy balanced diet’ routine,” he noted. “If I got a microbiome signature, I could potentially tell you what to eat to optimize your blood glucose trends and your lipid panels but not to handle long-term disease risk, yet. So sticking with the guideline-recommended dietary advice seems best, until we can provide more nuanced advice for the patient.

“Importantly, I would also like to see time-resolved data,” he added. “Signatures can fluctuate over time, even over days, and so collecting a few weeks of stool samples would help us to better align the microbiome signatures to clinical endpoints.”

Segata is a consultant to and receives options from ZOE. Gilbert is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Holobiome, BiomeSense, EcoBiomics Canadian Research Program, MASTER EU, Sun Genomics, and Oath; the editorial advisory board for The Scientist; and the external advisory board for the Binational Early Asthma & Microbiome Study. He is also an adviser for Bened Life.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who ate more plant-based and less meat-based foods — whether on a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diet — had more favorable microbiome compositions than those who did not follow a healthy dietary pattern, new research suggested.

For example, red meat was a strong driver of omnivore microbiomes, with corresponding signature microbes that are negatively correlated with host cardiometabolic health.

In contrast, the signature microbes found in vegans’ gut microbiomes were correlated with favorable cardiometabolic markers and were enriched in omnivores who ate more plant-based foods.

“From the viewpoint of the impact of diet on the gut microbiome, what seems to be more important is the diversity of healthy plant-based foods that are consumed,” principal author Nicola Segata, PhD, University of Trento in Italy, said in an interview. “Whether this comes within a vegan or an omnivore diet is less crucial, as long as there is no specific overconsumption of unhealthy food categories, such as red meat.”

Excluding broad categories of foods also can have consequences, he added. “For example, we saw that the exclusion of dairy fermented foods is associated with decreased presence of potentially probiotic microbes that are constitutive of such foods. Avoiding meat or dairy products does not necessarily have a positive effect if it does not come with a variety of quality plant-based products.”

The study was published online in Nature Microbiology.

 

Diet Tied to Microbial Signature

The researchers analyzed biological samples from 21,561 individuals across five multi-national cohorts to map how differences in diet patterns (omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan) are reflected in gut microbiomes.

They found that the three diet patterns are highly distinguishable by their microbial profiles and that each diet has corresponding unique signature microbes, including those tied to digestion of specific types of food and sometimes those derived from food itself.

The microbiomes of omnivores had an increased presence of bacteria associated with meat digestion, such as Alistipes putredinis, which is involved in protein fermentation. Omnivores also had more bacteria associated with both inflammatory bowel disease and increased colon cancer risk, such as Ruminococcus torques and Bilophila wadsworthia.

The microbiomes of vegans had an abundance of bacteria involved in fiber fermentation, such as several species of Bacteroides and Firmicutes phyla, which help produce short-chain fatty acids. These compounds have beneficial effects on gut health by reducing inflammation and helping to maintain a better homeostatic balance between an individual’s metabolism and immune system.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans was the presence in vegetarians’ microbiomes of Streptococcus thermophilus, a bacterium found mainly in dairy products and used in the production of yogurt.

Dietary factors within each diet pattern, such as the amount of plant-based food, shape the microbiome more than the type of diet and are important for gut health, according to the authors. For example, by eating more plant-based foods, people with an omnivorous diet can bring the proportion of beneficial signature microbes in their microbiomes more in line with the levels in people who are vegan or vegetarian.

“Since our data showed that omnivores on average ingest significantly fewer healthy plant-based foods than vegetarians or vegans, optimizing the quality of omnivore diets by increasing dietary plant diversity could lead to better gut health,” they wrote.

The ultimate goal, Segata said, is “a precision nutrition approach that recommends foods based on the configuration of the microbiome of patients and of the aspects of the microbiome one wants to enhance. We are not there yet, but it is nonetheless important to know which foods are usually boosting which types of members of the gut microbiome.”

His team is currently analyzing changes in the gut microbiome induced by diet changes among thousands of participants in various cohorts.

“This is one of the next steps toward unraveling causality along the diet-microbiome-health axis, together with the cultivation of specific microbiome members of interest for potential prebiotic and probiotic strategies,” he said.

 

Conventional Dietary Advice for Now

The findings are consistent with those of previous studies, Jack Gilbert, MD, director of the Microbiome and Metagenomics Center at the University of California, San Diego, and president of Applied Microbiology International, Cambridge, England, said in an interview.

“Future research needs to focus on whether the gut microbial signature can predict those that develop cardiovascular disease in each cohort — ie, the n-of-1 studies, whereby a vegan develops cardiovascular disease, or a carnivore does not,” said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

With more data, he said, “we can also start examining these trends over time to understand what might be going on with these ‘oddballs.’ ”

“There is not much you can do with the ‘eat a healthy balanced diet’ routine,” he noted. “If I got a microbiome signature, I could potentially tell you what to eat to optimize your blood glucose trends and your lipid panels but not to handle long-term disease risk, yet. So sticking with the guideline-recommended dietary advice seems best, until we can provide more nuanced advice for the patient.

“Importantly, I would also like to see time-resolved data,” he added. “Signatures can fluctuate over time, even over days, and so collecting a few weeks of stool samples would help us to better align the microbiome signatures to clinical endpoints.”

Segata is a consultant to and receives options from ZOE. Gilbert is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Holobiome, BiomeSense, EcoBiomics Canadian Research Program, MASTER EU, Sun Genomics, and Oath; the editorial advisory board for The Scientist; and the external advisory board for the Binational Early Asthma & Microbiome Study. He is also an adviser for Bened Life.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of how to manage certain gastrointestinal (GI) and liver conditions associated with pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and acute fatty liver of pregnancy, according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.  

 

“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.  

“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”  

The update was published online in Gastroenterology.  

 

Pregnancy-Related Concerns

The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.

Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.  

At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.  

Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.  

Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.  

For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.  

For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.  

For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.  

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.  

Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.  

In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.  

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.  

Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal. 

Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice

Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”  

Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.  

“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”  

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of how to manage certain gastrointestinal (GI) and liver conditions associated with pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and acute fatty liver of pregnancy, according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.  

 

“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.  

“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”  

The update was published online in Gastroenterology.  

 

Pregnancy-Related Concerns

The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.

Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.  

At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.  

Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.  

Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.  

For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.  

For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.  

For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.  

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.  

Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.  

In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.  

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.  

Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal. 

Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice

Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”  

Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.  

“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”  

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of how to manage certain gastrointestinal (GI) and liver conditions associated with pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and acute fatty liver of pregnancy, according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.  

 

“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.  

“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”  

The update was published online in Gastroenterology.  

 

Pregnancy-Related Concerns

The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.

Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.  

At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.  

Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.  

Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.  

For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.  

For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.  

For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.  

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.  

Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.  

In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.  

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.  

Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal. 

Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice

Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”  

Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.  

“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”  

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity appears to be associated with malignant progression of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.

“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.

“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Analyzing Risk

BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.

Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.

Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.

Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.

Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.

In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.

Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).

Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).

“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”

 

Considering Risk

This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.

“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”

Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.

“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.

One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity appears to be associated with malignant progression of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.

“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.

“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Analyzing Risk

BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.

Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.

Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.

Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.

Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.

In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.

Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).

Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).

“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”

 

Considering Risk

This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.

“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”

Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.

“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.

One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity appears to be associated with malignant progression of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.

“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.

“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Analyzing Risk

BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.

Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.

Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.

Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.

Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.

In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.

Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).

Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).

“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”

 

Considering Risk

This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.

“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”

Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.

“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.

One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.