GI and Hepatology News

An expert panel has published noninvasive test (NIT) cutoffs to identify patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis who may benefit from resmetirom therapy.

This guidance document allows clinicians to use a variety of NITs to start and monitor resmetirom therapy, precluding the need for a biopsy, lead author Mazen Noureddin, MD, of Houston Research Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, and colleagues reported.

Houston Methodist Hospital

“The recent conditional approval by the [Food and Drug Administration] of resmetirom ... presents a much-anticipated therapeutic option for patients with noncirrhotic advanced MASH,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

However, the approval also “presents important challenges,” they noted, “including how to noninvasively identify patients with fibrosis stages 2-3, and how to exclude patients with more advanced disease who should not be treated until further data emerge on the use of resmetirom in this population.”

To help identify which patients should get this new intervention, Noureddin and colleagues considered benchmarks from published literature, and conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 3 MASTERO-NASH trial data. Trial enrollment required at least three cardiometabolic risk factors and a vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) prescreening within the past 3 months. The population included 888 patients with F2 or F3 disease.

Recommendations were split into three categories: treat with resmetirom, consider treating with resmetirom, and do not treat with resmetirom.

The recommendation to treat calls for a VCTE of 10-15 kPa, a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of 3.3-4.2 kPa, or an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score of 9.2-10.4, with the caveat that an ELF score below 9.8 requires a second NIT for confirmation. Alternatively, a positive composite score such as FibroScan–aspartate aminotransferase (FAST), MRI–AST (MAST), or MRE + Fibrosis-4 (MEFIB) may serve as grounds for treatment. For any of the previous, platelets must concurrently be at least 140 with no evidence of portal hypertension.

The recommendation to consider treatment depends upon a VCTE of 15.1-19.9 kPa, an MRE of 4.3-4.9 kPa, an ELF score of 10.5-11.3, or positive FAST, MAST, or MEFIB. Again, these require a concurrent platelet count of 140 and no portal hypertension.

Finally, patients should not be treated with resmetirom if they have a VCTE of 20 kPa or greater, an MRE of 5 kPa or greater, and an ELF score greater than 11.3.

Noureddin and colleagues also offered guidance on monitoring strategies, including follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months.

At 3 months, the focus should be safety, including screening for drug-related liver injury and other adverse events that warrant cessation.

At 6 months, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, VCTE, or MRI–proton density fat fraction (PDFF) tests can indicate early response, but treatment should generally continue regardless of results.

At 12 months, efficacy can be fully evaluated. ALT normalization, or improvement of more than 17 IU/L or more than 20%, along with a 30% or greater drop in VCTE, or at least 30% drop in liver fat on MRI-PDFF, serve as grounds for continuation.

Noureddin and colleagues noted that ALT improvement should be paired with corresponding improvements in imaging, such as a 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF. Even if ALT levels do not improve, a 30% or greater reduction in MRI-PDFF can still indicate a positive response; however, VCTE alone may not be sufficient to fully assess treatment response.

“Emerging data, particularly regarding the noninvasive assessment of treatment response, are likely to further modify patient selection, safety signals, and efficacy algorithms,” they concluded.This study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the John C. Martin Foundation, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shire, and others.

An expert panel has published noninvasive test (NIT) cutoffs to identify patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis who may benefit from resmetirom therapy.

This guidance document allows clinicians to use a variety of NITs to start and monitor resmetirom therapy, precluding the need for a biopsy, lead author Mazen Noureddin, MD, of Houston Research Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, and colleagues reported.

Houston Methodist Hospital

“The recent conditional approval by the [Food and Drug Administration] of resmetirom ... presents a much-anticipated therapeutic option for patients with noncirrhotic advanced MASH,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

However, the approval also “presents important challenges,” they noted, “including how to noninvasively identify patients with fibrosis stages 2-3, and how to exclude patients with more advanced disease who should not be treated until further data emerge on the use of resmetirom in this population.”

To help identify which patients should get this new intervention, Noureddin and colleagues considered benchmarks from published literature, and conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 3 MASTERO-NASH trial data. Trial enrollment required at least three cardiometabolic risk factors and a vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) prescreening within the past 3 months. The population included 888 patients with F2 or F3 disease.

Recommendations were split into three categories: treat with resmetirom, consider treating with resmetirom, and do not treat with resmetirom.

The recommendation to treat calls for a VCTE of 10-15 kPa, a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of 3.3-4.2 kPa, or an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score of 9.2-10.4, with the caveat that an ELF score below 9.8 requires a second NIT for confirmation. Alternatively, a positive composite score such as FibroScan–aspartate aminotransferase (FAST), MRI–AST (MAST), or MRE + Fibrosis-4 (MEFIB) may serve as grounds for treatment. For any of the previous, platelets must concurrently be at least 140 with no evidence of portal hypertension.

The recommendation to consider treatment depends upon a VCTE of 15.1-19.9 kPa, an MRE of 4.3-4.9 kPa, an ELF score of 10.5-11.3, or positive FAST, MAST, or MEFIB. Again, these require a concurrent platelet count of 140 and no portal hypertension.

Finally, patients should not be treated with resmetirom if they have a VCTE of 20 kPa or greater, an MRE of 5 kPa or greater, and an ELF score greater than 11.3.

Noureddin and colleagues also offered guidance on monitoring strategies, including follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months.

At 3 months, the focus should be safety, including screening for drug-related liver injury and other adverse events that warrant cessation.

At 6 months, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, VCTE, or MRI–proton density fat fraction (PDFF) tests can indicate early response, but treatment should generally continue regardless of results.

At 12 months, efficacy can be fully evaluated. ALT normalization, or improvement of more than 17 IU/L or more than 20%, along with a 30% or greater drop in VCTE, or at least 30% drop in liver fat on MRI-PDFF, serve as grounds for continuation.

Noureddin and colleagues noted that ALT improvement should be paired with corresponding improvements in imaging, such as a 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF. Even if ALT levels do not improve, a 30% or greater reduction in MRI-PDFF can still indicate a positive response; however, VCTE alone may not be sufficient to fully assess treatment response.

“Emerging data, particularly regarding the noninvasive assessment of treatment response, are likely to further modify patient selection, safety signals, and efficacy algorithms,” they concluded.This study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the John C. Martin Foundation, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shire, and others.

An expert panel has published noninvasive test (NIT) cutoffs to identify patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis who may benefit from resmetirom therapy.

This guidance document allows clinicians to use a variety of NITs to start and monitor resmetirom therapy, precluding the need for a biopsy, lead author Mazen Noureddin, MD, of Houston Research Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, and colleagues reported.

Houston Methodist Hospital

“The recent conditional approval by the [Food and Drug Administration] of resmetirom ... presents a much-anticipated therapeutic option for patients with noncirrhotic advanced MASH,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

However, the approval also “presents important challenges,” they noted, “including how to noninvasively identify patients with fibrosis stages 2-3, and how to exclude patients with more advanced disease who should not be treated until further data emerge on the use of resmetirom in this population.”

To help identify which patients should get this new intervention, Noureddin and colleagues considered benchmarks from published literature, and conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 3 MASTERO-NASH trial data. Trial enrollment required at least three cardiometabolic risk factors and a vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) prescreening within the past 3 months. The population included 888 patients with F2 or F3 disease.

Recommendations were split into three categories: treat with resmetirom, consider treating with resmetirom, and do not treat with resmetirom.

The recommendation to treat calls for a VCTE of 10-15 kPa, a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of 3.3-4.2 kPa, or an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score of 9.2-10.4, with the caveat that an ELF score below 9.8 requires a second NIT for confirmation. Alternatively, a positive composite score such as FibroScan–aspartate aminotransferase (FAST), MRI–AST (MAST), or MRE + Fibrosis-4 (MEFIB) may serve as grounds for treatment. For any of the previous, platelets must concurrently be at least 140 with no evidence of portal hypertension.

The recommendation to consider treatment depends upon a VCTE of 15.1-19.9 kPa, an MRE of 4.3-4.9 kPa, an ELF score of 10.5-11.3, or positive FAST, MAST, or MEFIB. Again, these require a concurrent platelet count of 140 and no portal hypertension.

Finally, patients should not be treated with resmetirom if they have a VCTE of 20 kPa or greater, an MRE of 5 kPa or greater, and an ELF score greater than 11.3.

Noureddin and colleagues also offered guidance on monitoring strategies, including follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months.

At 3 months, the focus should be safety, including screening for drug-related liver injury and other adverse events that warrant cessation.

At 6 months, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, VCTE, or MRI–proton density fat fraction (PDFF) tests can indicate early response, but treatment should generally continue regardless of results.

At 12 months, efficacy can be fully evaluated. ALT normalization, or improvement of more than 17 IU/L or more than 20%, along with a 30% or greater drop in VCTE, or at least 30% drop in liver fat on MRI-PDFF, serve as grounds for continuation.

Noureddin and colleagues noted that ALT improvement should be paired with corresponding improvements in imaging, such as a 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF. Even if ALT levels do not improve, a 30% or greater reduction in MRI-PDFF can still indicate a positive response; however, VCTE alone may not be sufficient to fully assess treatment response.

“Emerging data, particularly regarding the noninvasive assessment of treatment response, are likely to further modify patient selection, safety signals, and efficacy algorithms,” they concluded.This study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the John C. Martin Foundation, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shire, and others.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

To my fellow AGA Members, I’m not the first to tell you that real progress in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of digestive disease is at risk. Research funding from traditional sources, like the National Institutes of Health, continues to shrink. We can expect even greater cuts on the horizon.

GI investigators in the early stages of their careers are particularly hard hit. They are finding it much more difficult to secure needed federal funding. As a result, many of these investigators are walking away from GI research frustrated by a lack of support.

It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

You know that research has revolutionized the care of many digestive disease patients. These patients, as well as everyone in the GI field clinicians and researchers alike, have benefited from the discoveries of passionate investigators, past and present.

This is where you can help.

New treatments and devices are the result of years of research. The AGA Research Foundation grants are critical to continuing the GI pipeline. The AGA research awards program helps researchers take new directions and discover new treatments to better patient care.

Help us fund more researchers by supporting the AGA Research Foundation with a year-end donation. Your donation will support young investigators’ research careers and help assure research is continued.

Be gracious, generous and giving to the future of the GI specialty this holiday season. There are three easy ways to give:

Make a tax-deductible donation online at www. foundation.gastro.org. 

Send a donation through the mail to: 

AGA Research Foundation 

4930 Del Ray Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Or donate over the phone by calling (301) 222-4002. All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of US law. Join us!

Dr. Camilleri is AGA Research Foundation Chair and Past AGA Institute President. He is a consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

To my fellow AGA Members, I’m not the first to tell you that real progress in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of digestive disease is at risk. Research funding from traditional sources, like the National Institutes of Health, continues to shrink. We can expect even greater cuts on the horizon.

GI investigators in the early stages of their careers are particularly hard hit. They are finding it much more difficult to secure needed federal funding. As a result, many of these investigators are walking away from GI research frustrated by a lack of support.

It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

You know that research has revolutionized the care of many digestive disease patients. These patients, as well as everyone in the GI field clinicians and researchers alike, have benefited from the discoveries of passionate investigators, past and present.

This is where you can help.

New treatments and devices are the result of years of research. The AGA Research Foundation grants are critical to continuing the GI pipeline. The AGA research awards program helps researchers take new directions and discover new treatments to better patient care.

Help us fund more researchers by supporting the AGA Research Foundation with a year-end donation. Your donation will support young investigators’ research careers and help assure research is continued.

Be gracious, generous and giving to the future of the GI specialty this holiday season. There are three easy ways to give:

Make a tax-deductible donation online at www. foundation.gastro.org. 

Send a donation through the mail to: 

AGA Research Foundation 

4930 Del Ray Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Or donate over the phone by calling (301) 222-4002. All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of US law. Join us!

Dr. Camilleri is AGA Research Foundation Chair and Past AGA Institute President. He is a consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

To my fellow AGA Members, I’m not the first to tell you that real progress in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of digestive disease is at risk. Research funding from traditional sources, like the National Institutes of Health, continues to shrink. We can expect even greater cuts on the horizon.

GI investigators in the early stages of their careers are particularly hard hit. They are finding it much more difficult to secure needed federal funding. As a result, many of these investigators are walking away from GI research frustrated by a lack of support.

It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

You know that research has revolutionized the care of many digestive disease patients. These patients, as well as everyone in the GI field clinicians and researchers alike, have benefited from the discoveries of passionate investigators, past and present.

This is where you can help.

New treatments and devices are the result of years of research. The AGA Research Foundation grants are critical to continuing the GI pipeline. The AGA research awards program helps researchers take new directions and discover new treatments to better patient care.

Help us fund more researchers by supporting the AGA Research Foundation with a year-end donation. Your donation will support young investigators’ research careers and help assure research is continued.

Be gracious, generous and giving to the future of the GI specialty this holiday season. There are three easy ways to give:

Make a tax-deductible donation online at www. foundation.gastro.org. 

Send a donation through the mail to: 

AGA Research Foundation 

4930 Del Ray Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Or donate over the phone by calling (301) 222-4002. All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of US law. Join us!

Dr. Camilleri is AGA Research Foundation Chair and Past AGA Institute President. He is a consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Did you miss out on the AGA Postgraduate Course this year? We have you covered with AGA PG Course OnDemand, a complete capture of the 2024 AGA Postgraduate Course, The Latest from the Greatest.

Visit agau.gastro.org to purchase today for flexible, on-the-go access to the latest clinical advances in the GI field.

• Unparalleled access: Choose when and where you dive into content with convenient access from any computer or mobile device.
• Incredible faculty: Learn from renowned experts who will offer their perspectives on cutting-edge research and clinical guidance.
• Tangible strategies: Expert and early career faculty will guide you through challenging patient cases and provide strategies you can easily implement upon your return to the office.
• Efficient learning: Content is organized by category: GI oncology, neurogastroenterology & motility, obesity, advanced endoscopy, and liver.
• Continuing education: With CME testing integrated directly into each session, you can easily earn up to 16 CME and MOC credits through December 31, 2024.

Did you miss out on the AGA Postgraduate Course this year? We have you covered with AGA PG Course OnDemand, a complete capture of the 2024 AGA Postgraduate Course, The Latest from the Greatest.

Visit agau.gastro.org to purchase today for flexible, on-the-go access to the latest clinical advances in the GI field.

• Unparalleled access: Choose when and where you dive into content with convenient access from any computer or mobile device.
• Incredible faculty: Learn from renowned experts who will offer their perspectives on cutting-edge research and clinical guidance.
• Tangible strategies: Expert and early career faculty will guide you through challenging patient cases and provide strategies you can easily implement upon your return to the office.
• Efficient learning: Content is organized by category: GI oncology, neurogastroenterology & motility, obesity, advanced endoscopy, and liver.
• Continuing education: With CME testing integrated directly into each session, you can easily earn up to 16 CME and MOC credits through December 31, 2024.

Did you miss out on the AGA Postgraduate Course this year? We have you covered with AGA PG Course OnDemand, a complete capture of the 2024 AGA Postgraduate Course, The Latest from the Greatest.

Visit agau.gastro.org to purchase today for flexible, on-the-go access to the latest clinical advances in the GI field.

• Unparalleled access: Choose when and where you dive into content with convenient access from any computer or mobile device.
• Incredible faculty: Learn from renowned experts who will offer their perspectives on cutting-edge research and clinical guidance.
• Tangible strategies: Expert and early career faculty will guide you through challenging patient cases and provide strategies you can easily implement upon your return to the office.
• Efficient learning: Content is organized by category: GI oncology, neurogastroenterology & motility, obesity, advanced endoscopy, and liver.
• Continuing education: With CME testing integrated directly into each session, you can easily earn up to 16 CME and MOC credits through December 31, 2024.

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) produces maximal weight loss in patients with obesity, compared with other surgical procedures and with weight loss drugs, according to a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the different treatment options. 

However, tirzepatide, a long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), produces comparable weight loss and has a favorable safety profile, reported principal investigator Jena Velji-Ibrahim, MD, MSc, from Prisma Health–Upstate/University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Greenville. 

In addition, there was “no significant difference in percentage total body weight loss between tirzepatide when comparing it to one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), as well as laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,” she said. 

All 11 interventions studied exerted weight loss effects, and side-effect profiles were also deemed largely favorable, particularly for endoscopic interventions, she added. 

“When we compare bariatric surgery to bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle offer a minimally invasive alternative with good weight loss outcomes and fewer adverse events,” she said.

Velji-Ibrahim presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). 
 

Comparing Weight Loss Interventions

Many of the studies comparing weight loss interventions to date have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, observational designs, and inconsistent results. This prompted Velji-Ibrahim and her colleagues to conduct what they believe to be the first-of-its-kind meta-analysis on this topic. 

They began by conducting a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration–approved bariatric surgeries, bariatric endoscopies, and medications — against each other or with placebo — in adults with a body mass index of 25-45, with or without concurrent type 2 diabetes. 

A network meta-analysis was then performed to assess the various interventions’ impact on percentage total weight loss and side-effect profiles. P-scores were calculated to rank the treatments and identify the preferred interventions. The duration of therapy was 52 weeks. 

In total, 34 eligible RCTs with 15,660 patients were included. Overall, the RCTs analyzed 11 weight loss treatments, including bariatric surgeries (four studies), bariatric endoscopies (three studies), and medications (four studies). 

Specifically, the bariatric surgeries included RYGB, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, OAGB, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding; bariatric endoscopies included endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon; and medications included tirzepatide, semaglutide, and liraglutide.

Although all interventions were associated with reductions in percentage total weight loss compared with placebo, RYGB led to the greatest reductions (19.29%) and was ranked as the first preferred treatment (97% probability). It was followed in the rankings by OAGB, tirzepatide 15 mg, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and semaglutide 2.4 mg. 

Tirzepatide 15 mg had a slightly lower percentage total weight loss (15.18%) but a favorable safety profile. There was no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between tirzepatide 15 mg and OAGB (mean difference, 2.97%) or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (mean difference, 0.43%). 

There was also no significant difference in percentage total weight loss between semaglutide 2.4 mg, compared with endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and transpyloric shuttle. 

Endoscopic sleeve, transpyloric shuttle, and intragastric balloon all resulted in weight loss > 5%. 

When compared with bariatric surgery, “endoscopic interventions had a better side-effect profile, with no increased odds of mortality and intensive care needs,” Velji-Ibrahim said. 

When it came to the medications, “the most common side effects were gastrointestinal in nature, which included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation,” she said.
 

Combining, Rather Than Comparing, Therapies

Following the presentation, session co-moderator Shivangi T. Kothari, MD, assistant professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, shared her thoughts of what the future of obesity management research might look like. 

It’s not just going to be about percentage total weight loss, she said, but about how well the effect is sustained following the intervention. 

And we might move “away from comparing one modality to another” and instead study combination therapies, “which would be ideal,” said Kothari.

This was the focus of another meta-analysis presented at ACG 2024, in which Nihal Ijaz I. Khan, MD, and colleagues compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric treatment alone vs its combined use with GLP-1 RAs.

The researchers identified three retrospective studies with 266 patients, of whom 143 underwent endoscopic bariatric treatment alone (either endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty or intragastric balloon) and 123 had it combined with GLP-1 RAs, specifically liraglutide. 

They reported that superior absolute weight loss was achieved in the group of patients receiving GLP-1 RAs in combination with endoscopic bariatric treatment. The standardized mean difference in body weight loss at treatment follow-up was 0.61 (P <.01). 

“Further studies are required to evaluate the safety and adverse events comparing these two treatment modalities and to discover differences between comparing the two endoscopic options to various GLP-1 receptor agonists,” Khan noted. 

Neither study had specific funding. Velji-Ibrahim and Khan reported no relevant financial relationships. Kothari reported serving as a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, as well as serving as an advisory committee/board member for Castle Biosciences.

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

Pediatric gastroenterologists are a vital, yet often overlooked segment of the GI workforce and an important part of AGA’s diverse membership. Per the American Board of Pediatrics, 2,232 pediatricians have been board certified in pediatric gastroenterology since formal certification was first offered in 1990, and AGA Institute Council’s Pediatric Gastroenterology and Developmental Biology Section has nearly 1,900 members.

According to a recently published study in the journal Pediatrics, the pediatric GI workforce is expected to double by 2040, growing at a rate faster than that of most other pediatric subspecialties. This is largely due to the increased scope and complexity of the field driven by scientific advances and the increasing prevalence of digestive and liver diseases in children, including inflammatory bowel and other diseases.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we highlight Dr. Yoyo Zhang, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford Children’s Health specializing in intestinal and liver transplantation. Her passion for her profession and for improving the lives of her patients shines brightly, and her interview provides fascinating insights into the complexities and rewards of the rapidly expanding field of pediatric gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

In our Perspectives feature, we offer expert insights on how to appropriately screen patients for certain rare malignancies. Is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and if so, how should it be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher-risk populations?

We hope you enjoy all the content in our November issue – as always, thanks for reading!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Pediatric gastroenterologists are a vital, yet often overlooked segment of the GI workforce and an important part of AGA’s diverse membership. Per the American Board of Pediatrics, 2,232 pediatricians have been board certified in pediatric gastroenterology since formal certification was first offered in 1990, and AGA Institute Council’s Pediatric Gastroenterology and Developmental Biology Section has nearly 1,900 members.

According to a recently published study in the journal Pediatrics, the pediatric GI workforce is expected to double by 2040, growing at a rate faster than that of most other pediatric subspecialties. This is largely due to the increased scope and complexity of the field driven by scientific advances and the increasing prevalence of digestive and liver diseases in children, including inflammatory bowel and other diseases.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we highlight Dr. Yoyo Zhang, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford Children’s Health specializing in intestinal and liver transplantation. Her passion for her profession and for improving the lives of her patients shines brightly, and her interview provides fascinating insights into the complexities and rewards of the rapidly expanding field of pediatric gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

In our Perspectives feature, we offer expert insights on how to appropriately screen patients for certain rare malignancies. Is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and if so, how should it be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher-risk populations?

We hope you enjoy all the content in our November issue – as always, thanks for reading!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Pediatric gastroenterologists are a vital, yet often overlooked segment of the GI workforce and an important part of AGA’s diverse membership. Per the American Board of Pediatrics, 2,232 pediatricians have been board certified in pediatric gastroenterology since formal certification was first offered in 1990, and AGA Institute Council’s Pediatric Gastroenterology and Developmental Biology Section has nearly 1,900 members.

According to a recently published study in the journal Pediatrics, the pediatric GI workforce is expected to double by 2040, growing at a rate faster than that of most other pediatric subspecialties. This is largely due to the increased scope and complexity of the field driven by scientific advances and the increasing prevalence of digestive and liver diseases in children, including inflammatory bowel and other diseases.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we highlight Dr. Yoyo Zhang, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Stanford Children’s Health specializing in intestinal and liver transplantation. Her passion for her profession and for improving the lives of her patients shines brightly, and her interview provides fascinating insights into the complexities and rewards of the rapidly expanding field of pediatric gastroenterology.

University of Michigan

In our Perspectives feature, we offer expert insights on how to appropriately screen patients for certain rare malignancies. Is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and if so, how should it be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher-risk populations?

We hope you enjoy all the content in our November issue – as always, thanks for reading!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies. While colorectal and esophageal cancer and their precursor lesions are well known to us, our approach to rarer malignancies is less well defined.

For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?

An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening

BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD

Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.

About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.

Duke University

Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.

High-risk individuals fall into three categories:

• Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
• Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
• Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)

Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.

Duke University

In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.

At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.

We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.

While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.

A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.

Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.

Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma

BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.^1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.

If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
 

Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders

Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.

Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening

While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.

MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.

From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.

Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.

References

1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.

2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.

Dear colleagues,

As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies. While colorectal and esophageal cancer and their precursor lesions are well known to us, our approach to rarer malignancies is less well defined.

For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?

An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening

BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD

Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.

About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.

Duke University

Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.

High-risk individuals fall into three categories:

• Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
• Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
• Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)

Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.

Duke University

In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.

At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.

We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.

While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.

A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.

Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.

Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma

BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.^1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.

If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
 

Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders

Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.

Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening

While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.

MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.

From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.

Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.

References

1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.

2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.

Dear colleagues,

As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies. While colorectal and esophageal cancer and their precursor lesions are well known to us, our approach to rarer malignancies is less well defined.

For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?

An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening

BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD

Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.

About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.

Duke University

Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.

High-risk individuals fall into three categories:

• Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
• Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
• Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)

Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.

Duke University

In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.

After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.

At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.

We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.

While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.

A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.

Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.

Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.

Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma

BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD

Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.^1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.

If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
 

Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.

Stanford School of Medicine

Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders

Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.

Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening

While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.

MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.

From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.

Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.

References

1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.

2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.

Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.¹ A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.¹ In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.² Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.³ Herein, we review diagnostics as well as the evolution of medical, endoscopic and basic surgical management for GERD.

Diagnosis

Definition

courtesy University of Southern California

GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.⁴ Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.⁵ The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.^3,6

Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation

The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.³ Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.³

Reflux Monitoring

courtesy University of Southern California

With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.^6,7

Esophageal Manometry

High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.

Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.⁶

Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,³ an important contraindication to surgery.
 

Medical Management

courtesy University of Southern California

Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).³

Lifestyle Modifications

Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.^6,8

Medications

Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.^3,8

MDedge News

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.⁹ When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.⁹

Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.³ Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.

Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.¹⁰

Adjunctive Therapies

Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.³ H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.³ Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.³ Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis^.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.³

When to Refer to Higher Level of Care

For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.^3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.⁸

Endoscopic Management

Patient Selection And Evaluation

For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,^3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.

MDedge News

The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.⁶ Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.¹³ Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.¹³ Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.¹²

The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.^11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
 

Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF

Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.

In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.

Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.^11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.¹⁵ One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.¹⁶ Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
 

TIF2.0 for Special Populations

Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.¹⁷ A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.

Other Endoscopic Procedures

Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
 

Stretta

The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.⁷

ARM, MASE, and RAP

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.^11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).¹²

Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.^11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).¹²
 

Surgical Management

We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.

Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.⁷ Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.¹⁹

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.⁷ MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.²⁰
 

Surgical Options for Special Populations

Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.⁷ In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.

Conclusion

Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.

Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.

2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.

3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.

4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.

5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.

6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.

7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.

8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.

9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.

10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.

11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.

12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.

13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.

14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.

15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.

16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.

17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.

18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.

19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.

20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.

Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.¹ A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.¹ In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.² Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.³ Herein, we review diagnostics as well as the evolution of medical, endoscopic and basic surgical management for GERD.

Diagnosis

Definition

courtesy University of Southern California

GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.⁴ Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.⁵ The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.^3,6

Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation

The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.³ Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.³

Reflux Monitoring

courtesy University of Southern California

With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.^6,7

Esophageal Manometry

High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.

Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.⁶

Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,³ an important contraindication to surgery.
 

Medical Management

courtesy University of Southern California

Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).³

Lifestyle Modifications

Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.^6,8

Medications

Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.^3,8

MDedge News

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.⁹ When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.⁹

Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.³ Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.

Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.¹⁰

Adjunctive Therapies

Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.³ H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.³ Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.³ Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis^.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.³

When to Refer to Higher Level of Care

For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.^3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.⁸

Endoscopic Management

Patient Selection And Evaluation

For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,^3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.

MDedge News

The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.⁶ Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.¹³ Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.¹³ Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.¹²

The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.^11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
 

Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF

Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.

In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.

Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.^11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.¹⁵ One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.¹⁶ Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
 

TIF2.0 for Special Populations

Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.¹⁷ A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.

Other Endoscopic Procedures

Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
 

Stretta

The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.⁷

ARM, MASE, and RAP

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.^11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).¹²

Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.^11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).¹²
 

Surgical Management

We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.

Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.⁷ Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.¹⁹

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.⁷ MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.²⁰
 

Surgical Options for Special Populations

Patients with medically refractory GERD and a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² may benefit from either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or fundoplication, however sleeve gastrectomy is not advised.⁷ In patients with BMI > 50 kg/m2, RYGB may provide an optimal choice. We agree with consultation with a bariatric surgeon when reviewing these situations.

Conclusion

Patients with GERD are commonly encountered worldwide. Empiric PPI are effective mainstays for medical treatment of GERD. Novel PCABs (e.g., vonoprazan) may present new options for GERD with LA Grade C/D esophagitis EE and merit more study. In refractory cases or for patients who do not want long term medical therapy, step-up therapy may be considered via endoscopic or surgical interventions. Patient anatomy and comorbidities should be considered by the clinician to inform treatment options. Surgery may have the most durable outcomes for those requiring step-up therapy. Improvements in technique, devices and patient selection have allowed TIF2.0 to grow as a viable offering with excellent 5-year outcomes for indicated patients.

Dr. Chang, Dr. Tintara, and Dr. Phan are based in the Division of Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Richter JE andRubenstein JH. Gastroenterology. 2018 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.045.

2. El-Serag HB et al. Gut. 2014 Jun. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304269.

3. Yadlapati R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.025.

4. Vakil N et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Aug. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x.

5. Numans ME et al. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00011.

6. Kahrilas PJ et al. Gastroenterology. 2008 Oct. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.045.

7. Slater BJ et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09817-3.

8. Gyawali CP et al. Gut. 2018 Jul. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314722.

9. Graham DY and Tansel A. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.033.

10. Graham DY and Dore MP. Gastroenterology. 2018 Feb. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.018.

11. Haseeb M and Thompson CC. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Sep. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000968.

12. Kolb JM and Chang KJ. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2023 Jul. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000944.

13. Nguyen NT et al. Foregut. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1177/26345161221126961.

14. Mazzoleni G et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Feb. doi: 10.1055/a-1322-2209.

15. Trad KS et al. Surg Innov. 2018 Apr. doi: 10.1177/1553350618755214.

16. Kolb JM et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(21)02953-X.

17. Jaruvongvanich VK et al. Endosc Int Open. 2023 Jan. doi: 10.1055/a-1972-9190.

18. Lee Y et al. Surg Endosc. 2023 Jul. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10151-5.

19. Andreou A et al. Surg Endosc. 2020 Feb. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07208-9.

20. Guidozzi N et al. Dis Esophagus. 2019 Nov. doi: 10.1093/dote/doz031.

Introduction

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a frequently encountered condition, and rising annually.¹ A recent meta-analysis suggests nearly 14% (1.03 billion) of the population are affected worldwide. Differences may range by region from 12% in Latin America to 20% in North America, and by country from 4% in China to 23% in Turkey.¹ In the United States, 21% of the population are afflicted with weekly GERD symptoms.² Novel medical therapies and endoscopic options provide clinicians with opportunities to help patients with GERD.³ Herein, we review diagnostics as well as the evolution of medical, endoscopic and basic surgical management for GERD.

Diagnosis

Definition

courtesy University of Southern California

GERD was originally defined by the Montreal consensus as a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications.⁴ Heartburn and regurgitation are common symptoms of GERD, with a sensitivity of 30%-76% and specificity of 62%-96% for erosive esophagitis (EE), which occurs when the reflux of stomach content causes esophageal mucosal breaks.⁵ The presence of characteristic mucosal injury observed during an upper endoscopy or abnormal esophageal acid exposure on ambulatory reflux monitoring are objective evidence of GERD. A trial of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) may function as a diagnostic test for patients exhibiting the typical symptoms of GERD without any alarm symptoms.^3,6

Endoscopic Evaluation and Confirmation

The 2022 American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) clinical practice update recommends diagnostic endoscopy, after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks, in patients whose GERD symptoms do not respond adequately to an empiric trial of a PPI.³ Those with GERD and alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss, bleeding, and vomiting should undergo endoscopy as soon as possible. Endoscopic findings of EE (Los Angeles Grade B or more severe) and long-segment Barrett’s esophagus (> 3-cm segment with intestinal metaplasia on biopsy) are diagnostic of GERD.³

Reflux Monitoring

courtesy University of Southern California

With ambulatory reflux monitoring (pH or impedance-pH), esophageal acid exposure (or neutral refluxate in impedance testing) can be measured to confirm GERD diagnosis and to correlate symptoms with reflux episodes. Patients with atypical GERD symptoms or patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GERD whose symptoms have not improved sufficiently with twice-daily PPI therapy should have esophageal impedance-pH monitoring while on PPIs.^6,7

Esophageal Manometry

High-resolution esophageal manometry can be used to assess motility abnormalities associated with GERD.

Although no manometric abnormality is unique to GERD, weak lower esophageal sphincter (LES) resting pressure and ineffective esophageal motility frequently coexist with severe GERD.⁶

Manometry is particularly useful in patients considering surgical or endoscopic anti-reflux procedures to evaluate for achalasia,³ an important contraindication to surgery.
 

Medical Management

courtesy University of Southern California

Management of GERD requires a multidisciplinary and personalized approach based on symptom presentation, body mass index, endoscopic findings (e.g., presence of EE, Barrett’s esophagus, hiatal hernia), and physiological abnormalities (e.g., gastroparesis or ineffective motility).³

Lifestyle Modifications

Recommended lifestyle modifications include weight loss for patients with obesity, stress reduction, tobacco and alcohol cessation, elevating the head of the bed, staying upright during and after meals, avoidance of food intake < 3 hours before bedtime, and cessation of foods that potentially aggravate reflux symptoms such as coffee, chocolate, carbonated beverages, spicy foods, acidic foods, and foods with high fat content.^6,8

Medications

Pharmacologic therapy for GERD includes medications that primarily aim to neutralize or reduce gastric acid -- we summarize options in Table 1.^3,8

MDedge News

Proton Pump Inhibitors

Most guidelines suggest a trial of 4-8 weeks of once-daily enteric-coated PPI before meals in patients with typical GERD symptoms and no alarm symptoms. Escalation to double-dose PPI may be considered in the case of persistent symptoms. The relative potencies of standard-dose pantoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and rabeprazole are presented in Table 1.⁹ When a PPI switch is needed, rabeprazole may be considered as it is a PPI that does not rely on CYP2C19 for primary metabolism.⁹

Acid suppression should be weaned down to the lowest effective dose or converted to H2RAs or other antacids once symptoms are sufficiently controlled unless patients have EE, Barrett’s esophagus, or peptic stricture.³ Patients with severe GERD may require long-term PPI therapy or an invasive anti-reflux procedure.

Recent studies have shown that potassium-competitive acid blockers (PCAB) like vonoprazan may offer more effective gastric acid inhibition. While not included in the latest clinical practice update, vonoprazan is thought to be superior to lansoprazole for those with LA Grade C/D esophagitis for both symptom relief and healing at 2 weeks.¹⁰

Adjunctive Therapies

Alginates can function as a physical barrier to even neutral reflux and may be helpful for patients with postprandial or nighttime symptoms as well as those with hiatal hernia.³ H2RAs can also help mitigate nighttime symptoms.³ Baclofen is a gamma-aminobutyric acid–B agonist which inhibits transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and may be effective for patients with belching.³ Prokinetics may be helpful for GERD with concomitant gastroparesis^.3 Sucralfate is a mucosal protective agent, but there is a lack of data supporting its efficacy in GERD treatment. Consider referral to a behavioral therapist for supplemental therapies, hypnotherapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies for functional heartburn or reflux-associated esophageal hypervigilance or reflux hypersensitivity.³

When to Refer to Higher Level of Care

For patients who do not wish to remain on longer-term pharmacologic therapy or would benefit from anatomic repair, clinicians should have a discussion of risks and benefits prior to consideration of referral for anti-reflux procedures.^3,6,8 We advise this conversation should include review of patient health status, postsurgical side effects such as increased flatus, bloating and dysphagia as well as the potential need to still resume PPI post operation.⁸

Endoscopic Management

Patient Selection And Evaluation

For the groups indicated for a higher level of care, we agree with AGA recommendations, multi-society guidelines, and expert review,^3,7,11,12 and highlight potential options in Table 2. Step-up options should be based on patient characteristics and reviewed carefully with patients. Endoscopic therapies are less invasive than surgery and may be considered for those who do not require anatomic repair of hiatal hernia, do not want surgery, or are not suitable for surgery.

MDedge News

The pathophysiology of GERD is from a loss of the anti-reflux barrier of the esophageal gastric junction (EGJ) at the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) leading to unintended retrograde movement of gastric contents.⁶ Anatomically, the LES is composed of muscles of the distal esophagus and sling fibers of the proximal stomach, the “external valve” from the diaphragmatic crura, and the “internal valve” from the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV). GERD occurs from mechanical failure of the LES. First, there may be disproportional dilation of the diaphragmatic crura as categorized by Hill Grade of the GEFV as seen by a retroflexed view of EGJ after 30-45 seconds of insufflation.¹³ Second, there may be a migration of the LES away from the diaphragmatic crura as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Provocative maneuvers may reveal a sliding hernia by gentle retraction of the endoscope while under retroflexed view.¹³ Third, there may be more frequent TLESR associated with GERD.¹²

The aim of most interventions is to restore competency of the LES by reconstruction of the GEFV via suture or staple-based approximation of tissue.^11,12 Intraluminal therapy may only target the GEFV at the internal valve. Therefore, most endoscopic interventions are limited to patients with intact diaphragmatic crura (ie, small to no hiatal hernia and GEFV Hill Grade 1 to 2). Contraindications for endoscopic therapy are moderate to severe reflux (ie, LA Grade C/ D), hiatus hernia 2 cm or larger, strictures, or long-segment Barrett’s esophagus.
 

Utility, Safety, and Outcomes of TIF

Historically, endoscopic therapy targeting endoscopic fundoplication started with EndoLuminal gastro-gastric fundoplication (ELF, 2005) which was a proof of concept of safe manipulation and suture for gastro-gastric plication to below the Z-line. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) 1.0 was suggested in 2007 for clinical application by proposing a longitudinal oriented esophago-gastric plication 1 cm above the Z-line.

In 2009, TIF2.0 was proposed as a rotational 270° wrap of the cardia and fundus to a full-thickness esophago-gastric fundoplication around 2-4 cm of the distal esophagus. Like a surgical fundoplication, this reinforces sling fibers, increases the Angle of His and improves the cardiac notch. TIF 2.0 is indicated for those with small (< 2 cm) or no hiatal hernia and a GEFV Hill Grade 1 or 2. The present iteration of TIF2.0 uses EsophyX-Z (EndoGastric Solutions; Redmond, Washington) which features dual fastener deployment and a simplified firing mechanism. Plication is secured via nonresorbable polypropylene T-fasteners with strength equivalence of 3-0 sutures.

Compared with the original, TIF2.0 represents a decrease of severe adverse events from 2%-2.5% to 0.4%-1%.^11,14 Based on longitudinal TEMPO data, patient satisfaction ranges between 70% and 90% and rates of patients reverting to daily PPI use are 17% and 34% at 1 and 5 years. A 5% reintervention rate was noted to be comparable with surgical reoperation for fundoplication.¹⁵ One retrospective evaluation of patients with failed TIF followed by successful cTIF noted that in all failures there was a documented underestimation of a much larger crura defect at time of index procedure.¹⁶ Chest pain is common post procedure and patients and collaborating providers should be counseled on the expected course. In our practice, we admit patients for at least 1 postprocedure day and consider scheduling symptom control medications for those with significant pain.
 

TIF2.0 for Special Populations

Indications for TIF2.0 continue to evolve. In 2017, concomitant TIF2.0 with hiatal hernia repair (cTIF or HH-TIF) for hernia > 2 cm was accepted for expanded use. In one study, cTIF has been shown to have similar outcomes for postprocedural PPI use, dysphagia, wrap disruption, and hiatal hernia recurrence, compared with hiatal hernia repair paired with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with possibly shorter postadmission stay, serious adverse events, and bloating.¹⁷ A cTIF may be performed in a single general anesthetic session typically with a surgical hiatal hernia repair followed by TIF2.0.

Other Endoscopic Procedures

Several other endoscopic interventions have been proposed for GERD management. The following procedures are under continuous study and should be considered only by those with expertise.
 

Stretta

The Stretta device (Restech; Houston, Texas) was approved in 2000 for use of a radiofrequency (RF) generator and catheter applied to the squamocolumnar junction under irrigation. Ideal candidates for this nonablative procedure may include patients with confirmed GERD, low-grade EE, without Barrett’s esophagus, small hiatal hernia, and a competent LES with pressure > 5 mmHg. Meta-analysis has yielded conflicting results in terms of its efficacy, compared with TIF2.0, and recent multi-society guidance suggests fundoplication over Stretta.⁷

ARM, MASE, and RAP

Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARM) has been proposed based on the observation that patients undergoing mucosectomy for neoplasms in the cardia had improvement of reflux symptoms.^11,12 Systematic review has suggested a clinical response of 80% of either PPI discontinuation or reduction, but 17% of adverse events include development of strictures. Iterations of ARM continue to be studied including ARM with band ligation (L-ARM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD (ESD-G).¹²

Experts have proposed incorporating endoscopic suturing of the EGJ to modulate the LES. Mucosal ablation and suturing of the EG junction (MASE) has been proposed by first priming tissue via argon plasma coagulation (APC) prior to endoscopic overstitch of two to three interrupted sutures below the EGJ to narrow and elongate the EGJ. The resection and plication (RAP) procedure performs a mucosal resection prior to full-thickness plication of the LES and cardia.^11,12 Expert opinion has suggested that RAP may be used in patients with altered anatomy whereas MASE may be used when resection is not possible (eg, prior scarring, resection or ablation).¹²
 

Surgical Management

We agree with a recent multi-society guideline recommending that an interdisciplinary consultation with surgery for indicated patients with refractory GERD and underlying hiatal hernia, or who do not want lifelong medical therapy.

Fundoplication creates a surgical wrap to reinforce the LES and may be performed laparoscopically. Contraindications include body mass index (BMI) >35 kg/m2 and significantly impaired dysmotility. Fundoplication of 180°, 270°, and 360° may achieve comparable outcomes, but a laparoscopic toupet fundoplication (LTF 270°) may have fewer postsurgical issues of dysphagia and bloating. Advantages for both anterior and posterior partial fundoplications have been demonstrated by network meta-analysis. Therefore, a multi-society guideline for GERD suggests partial over complete fundoplication.⁷ Compared with posterior techniques, anterior fundoplication (Watson fundoplication) led to more recurrent reflux symptoms but less dysphagia and other side effects.¹⁹

Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a surgical option that strengthens the LES with magnets to improve sphincter competence. In addition to listed contraindications of fundoplication, patients with an allergy to nickel and/or titanium are also contraindicated to receive MSA.⁷ MSA has been suggested to be equivalent to LNF although there may be less gas bloat and greater ability to belch on follow up.²⁰