News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I’d like to discuss what I consider to be an absolutely fascinating paper, and one that I will say has very interesting results but raises many more questions than it answers. I think that was the intent of the authors.

The paper is entitled, “Addition of metastasis-directed therapy to systemic therapy for oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (EXTEND): a multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial,” published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

You might ask what metastasis-directed therapy in pancreatic cancer means. Have we really made much of an impact on pancreatic cancer? In fact, in my earlier years of training, if somebody came up with the idea, or suggested as part of a trial or treatment of an individual patient, that they would focus on metastases in pancreas cancer, you might say they’re crazy, or you might say: “Yeah, but they probably don’t know anything about the disease and its natural history.” 

Now, fast forward several decades. Even with the recognized, modest advances in systemic therapy, what we see are tremendous, really remarkable advances in innovations in radiation therapy. Of course, this includes not only the use of radiation itself but also the imaging technology that is used to direct the radiation therapy. These advances have permitted asking the questions that are addressed in the current study. 

Again, this study is fascinating. They randomized a very small number. Again, it’s a randomized phase 2 study. It’s really more of a proof of principle here. They randomized 41 patients with five or fewer metastatic lesions — with oligometastatic disease, they could have numerous lesions — to undergo what they’ve described as comprehensive metastases-directed therapy.

Most of this was external beam radiation therapy and stereotactic radiation therapy, but there were some localized radiation implants as well, plus chemotherapy. This was comprehensive metastases-directed therapy to each of these sites plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

What was shown in this trial? The progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastases-directed therapy group was 10.3 months vs 2.5 months in the group of patients who received chemotherapy only, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 and statistical significance.

Remember, this was a very small study, but we see more than a tripling in the PFS. There was no difference in overall survival, which is not at all surprising because it was a very small sample size. 

Very importantly — and essential to doing this trial ethically — a crossover was permitted at the time of progression, meaning that if a patient received chemotherapy only and progressed, they could potentially get stereotactic radiation to sites of metastatic disease. They might have also benefited from that kind of strategy to the metastasis-[therapy] so that overall survival in the small population may not be different. Again, there was a tripling of the time to disease progression.

Clearly, a larger study will be required to be more definitive. We would need more centers involved and maybe some modification in the study design in this trial because of any issues that the investigators may have identified. Of course, overall survival would be a fair endpoint to look at, but again, crossover would be essential, and that might influence an ultimate outcome. PFS is a very valid endpoint.

The only other point to mention is, with these results — and as I mentioned, advances in radiation and imaging — is it reasonable to potentially consider this type of approach for individual patients as a component of aggressive standard of care? Of course, this would be with very adequate informed consent from patients, because we don’t know what the impact will be. 

With the limited morbidity associated with the radiation, for an individual patient with pancreatic cancer who has an adequate performance status and limited metastases, if we give them chemotherapy and also directed radiation, is it reasonable to consider that as an appropriate treatment option outside the setting of a clinical trial?

I think this is a very valid question that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, the answer in some settings should be yes, but that needs to be discussed much more widely than simply in this randomized phase 2 trial.

Thank you for your attention.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I’d like to discuss what I consider to be an absolutely fascinating paper, and one that I will say has very interesting results but raises many more questions than it answers. I think that was the intent of the authors.

The paper is entitled, “Addition of metastasis-directed therapy to systemic therapy for oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (EXTEND): a multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial,” published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

You might ask what metastasis-directed therapy in pancreatic cancer means. Have we really made much of an impact on pancreatic cancer? In fact, in my earlier years of training, if somebody came up with the idea, or suggested as part of a trial or treatment of an individual patient, that they would focus on metastases in pancreas cancer, you might say they’re crazy, or you might say: “Yeah, but they probably don’t know anything about the disease and its natural history.” 

Now, fast forward several decades. Even with the recognized, modest advances in systemic therapy, what we see are tremendous, really remarkable advances in innovations in radiation therapy. Of course, this includes not only the use of radiation itself but also the imaging technology that is used to direct the radiation therapy. These advances have permitted asking the questions that are addressed in the current study. 

Again, this study is fascinating. They randomized a very small number. Again, it’s a randomized phase 2 study. It’s really more of a proof of principle here. They randomized 41 patients with five or fewer metastatic lesions — with oligometastatic disease, they could have numerous lesions — to undergo what they’ve described as comprehensive metastases-directed therapy.

Most of this was external beam radiation therapy and stereotactic radiation therapy, but there were some localized radiation implants as well, plus chemotherapy. This was comprehensive metastases-directed therapy to each of these sites plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

What was shown in this trial? The progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastases-directed therapy group was 10.3 months vs 2.5 months in the group of patients who received chemotherapy only, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 and statistical significance.

Remember, this was a very small study, but we see more than a tripling in the PFS. There was no difference in overall survival, which is not at all surprising because it was a very small sample size. 

Very importantly — and essential to doing this trial ethically — a crossover was permitted at the time of progression, meaning that if a patient received chemotherapy only and progressed, they could potentially get stereotactic radiation to sites of metastatic disease. They might have also benefited from that kind of strategy to the metastasis-[therapy] so that overall survival in the small population may not be different. Again, there was a tripling of the time to disease progression.

Clearly, a larger study will be required to be more definitive. We would need more centers involved and maybe some modification in the study design in this trial because of any issues that the investigators may have identified. Of course, overall survival would be a fair endpoint to look at, but again, crossover would be essential, and that might influence an ultimate outcome. PFS is a very valid endpoint.

The only other point to mention is, with these results — and as I mentioned, advances in radiation and imaging — is it reasonable to potentially consider this type of approach for individual patients as a component of aggressive standard of care? Of course, this would be with very adequate informed consent from patients, because we don’t know what the impact will be. 

With the limited morbidity associated with the radiation, for an individual patient with pancreatic cancer who has an adequate performance status and limited metastases, if we give them chemotherapy and also directed radiation, is it reasonable to consider that as an appropriate treatment option outside the setting of a clinical trial?

I think this is a very valid question that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, the answer in some settings should be yes, but that needs to be discussed much more widely than simply in this randomized phase 2 trial.

Thank you for your attention.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I’d like to discuss what I consider to be an absolutely fascinating paper, and one that I will say has very interesting results but raises many more questions than it answers. I think that was the intent of the authors.

The paper is entitled, “Addition of metastasis-directed therapy to systemic therapy for oligometastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (EXTEND): a multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial,” published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

You might ask what metastasis-directed therapy in pancreatic cancer means. Have we really made much of an impact on pancreatic cancer? In fact, in my earlier years of training, if somebody came up with the idea, or suggested as part of a trial or treatment of an individual patient, that they would focus on metastases in pancreas cancer, you might say they’re crazy, or you might say: “Yeah, but they probably don’t know anything about the disease and its natural history.” 

Now, fast forward several decades. Even with the recognized, modest advances in systemic therapy, what we see are tremendous, really remarkable advances in innovations in radiation therapy. Of course, this includes not only the use of radiation itself but also the imaging technology that is used to direct the radiation therapy. These advances have permitted asking the questions that are addressed in the current study. 

Again, this study is fascinating. They randomized a very small number. Again, it’s a randomized phase 2 study. It’s really more of a proof of principle here. They randomized 41 patients with five or fewer metastatic lesions — with oligometastatic disease, they could have numerous lesions — to undergo what they’ve described as comprehensive metastases-directed therapy.

Most of this was external beam radiation therapy and stereotactic radiation therapy, but there were some localized radiation implants as well, plus chemotherapy. This was comprehensive metastases-directed therapy to each of these sites plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone.

What was shown in this trial? The progression-free survival (PFS) in the metastases-directed therapy group was 10.3 months vs 2.5 months in the group of patients who received chemotherapy only, with a hazard ratio of 0.43 and statistical significance.

Remember, this was a very small study, but we see more than a tripling in the PFS. There was no difference in overall survival, which is not at all surprising because it was a very small sample size. 

Very importantly — and essential to doing this trial ethically — a crossover was permitted at the time of progression, meaning that if a patient received chemotherapy only and progressed, they could potentially get stereotactic radiation to sites of metastatic disease. They might have also benefited from that kind of strategy to the metastasis-[therapy] so that overall survival in the small population may not be different. Again, there was a tripling of the time to disease progression.

Clearly, a larger study will be required to be more definitive. We would need more centers involved and maybe some modification in the study design in this trial because of any issues that the investigators may have identified. Of course, overall survival would be a fair endpoint to look at, but again, crossover would be essential, and that might influence an ultimate outcome. PFS is a very valid endpoint.

The only other point to mention is, with these results — and as I mentioned, advances in radiation and imaging — is it reasonable to potentially consider this type of approach for individual patients as a component of aggressive standard of care? Of course, this would be with very adequate informed consent from patients, because we don’t know what the impact will be. 

With the limited morbidity associated with the radiation, for an individual patient with pancreatic cancer who has an adequate performance status and limited metastases, if we give them chemotherapy and also directed radiation, is it reasonable to consider that as an appropriate treatment option outside the setting of a clinical trial?

I think this is a very valid question that needs to be addressed. In my opinion, the answer in some settings should be yes, but that needs to be discussed much more widely than simply in this randomized phase 2 trial.

Thank you for your attention.

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

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with the burden, comorbidities, and mortality of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease (MASLD). These health mediators should be considered along with individual SDOH in clinical care and healthcare quality and equity improvement, a large retrospective study of adults with MASLD at a multi-state healthcare institution concluded.

Across quartiles, patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (according to home addresses) vs the least disadvantaged had worse outcomes and were also disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and Native American/Alaska Native, more often Spanish-speaking in primary language, and more often uninsured or on Medicaid, according to Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix, and colleagues writing in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Even after adjustment for measures in the Social Deprivation Index (SDI), the incidence of death, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus (DM), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in Native American/Alaska Native patients compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The SDI is a composite measure of seven demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey, with scores ranging from 1 to 100 and weighted based on characteristics from national percentile rankings.

Aligning with the growing prevalence of obesity and DM, MASLD has increased substantially over the past three decades, and is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in this country and the world. 

This rise in prevalence has underscored health disparities in MASLD and prompted research into linkd between liver disease and SDOH, defined as the conditions under which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These are fundamental drivers of health disparities, including those in MASLD.
 

Study Details

Primary outcomes were MASLD burden, mortality, and comorbidities by neighborhood SDOH, assessed using the SDI in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.

A total of 69,191 adult patients (more than 50% female) diagnosed with MASLD were included, 45,003 of whom had at least 365 days of follow-up. They were treated from July 2012 to June 2023 in Banner Health Systems, a network that includes primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-care centers in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

The median follow-up time was 48 months. Among patients across SDI quartiles (age range 49 to 62 years), 1390 patients (3.1%) died, 902 (2.0%) developed cirrhosis, 1087 (2.4%) developed LRE, 6537 (14.5%) developed DM, 2057 (4.6%) developed cancer, and 5409 (12.0%) developed MACE.

Those living in the most disadvantaged quartile of neighborhoods compared with the least had the following higher odds:

• cirrhosis, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42 (P < .001)
• any cardiovascular (CVD) disease, aOR, 1.20 (P < .001),
• coronary artery disease, aOR, 1.17 (P < .001)
• congestive heart failure, aOR, 1.43 (P < .001)
• cerebrovascular accident, aOR, 1.19 (P = .001)
• DM, aOR, 1.57 (P < .001)
• hypertension, aOR, 1.38 (P < .001).

They also had increased incidence of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47; P < .001), LRE (aHR, 1.31; P = .012), DM (aHR, 1.47; P < .001), and MACE (aHR, 1.24; P < .001). 

The study expands upon previous SDOH-related research in liver disease and is the largest analysis of neighborhood-level SDOH in patients with MASLD to date. “Our findings are consistent with a recent study by Chen et al of over 15,900 patients with MASLD in Michigan that found neighborhood-level social disadvantage was associated with increased mortality and incident LREs and CVD,” Wijarnpreecha and colleagues wrote. 

“Beyond screening patients for individual-level SDOH, neighborhood-level determinants of health should also be considered, as they are important mediators between the environment and the individual,” they added, calling for studies to better understand the specific neighborhood SDOH that drive the disparate outcomes. In practice, integration of these measures into medical records might inform clinicians which patients would benefit from social services or help guide quality improvement projects and community partnerships.

Wijarnpreecha had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Several coauthors reported research support, consulting/advisory work, or stock ownership for various private-sector companies.
 

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with the burden, comorbidities, and mortality of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease (MASLD). These health mediators should be considered along with individual SDOH in clinical care and healthcare quality and equity improvement, a large retrospective study of adults with MASLD at a multi-state healthcare institution concluded.

Across quartiles, patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (according to home addresses) vs the least disadvantaged had worse outcomes and were also disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and Native American/Alaska Native, more often Spanish-speaking in primary language, and more often uninsured or on Medicaid, according to Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix, and colleagues writing in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Even after adjustment for measures in the Social Deprivation Index (SDI), the incidence of death, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus (DM), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in Native American/Alaska Native patients compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The SDI is a composite measure of seven demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey, with scores ranging from 1 to 100 and weighted based on characteristics from national percentile rankings.

Aligning with the growing prevalence of obesity and DM, MASLD has increased substantially over the past three decades, and is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in this country and the world. 

This rise in prevalence has underscored health disparities in MASLD and prompted research into linkd between liver disease and SDOH, defined as the conditions under which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These are fundamental drivers of health disparities, including those in MASLD.
 

Study Details

Primary outcomes were MASLD burden, mortality, and comorbidities by neighborhood SDOH, assessed using the SDI in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.

A total of 69,191 adult patients (more than 50% female) diagnosed with MASLD were included, 45,003 of whom had at least 365 days of follow-up. They were treated from July 2012 to June 2023 in Banner Health Systems, a network that includes primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-care centers in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

The median follow-up time was 48 months. Among patients across SDI quartiles (age range 49 to 62 years), 1390 patients (3.1%) died, 902 (2.0%) developed cirrhosis, 1087 (2.4%) developed LRE, 6537 (14.5%) developed DM, 2057 (4.6%) developed cancer, and 5409 (12.0%) developed MACE.

Those living in the most disadvantaged quartile of neighborhoods compared with the least had the following higher odds:

• cirrhosis, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42 (P < .001)
• any cardiovascular (CVD) disease, aOR, 1.20 (P < .001),
• coronary artery disease, aOR, 1.17 (P < .001)
• congestive heart failure, aOR, 1.43 (P < .001)
• cerebrovascular accident, aOR, 1.19 (P = .001)
• DM, aOR, 1.57 (P < .001)
• hypertension, aOR, 1.38 (P < .001).

They also had increased incidence of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47; P < .001), LRE (aHR, 1.31; P = .012), DM (aHR, 1.47; P < .001), and MACE (aHR, 1.24; P < .001). 

The study expands upon previous SDOH-related research in liver disease and is the largest analysis of neighborhood-level SDOH in patients with MASLD to date. “Our findings are consistent with a recent study by Chen et al of over 15,900 patients with MASLD in Michigan that found neighborhood-level social disadvantage was associated with increased mortality and incident LREs and CVD,” Wijarnpreecha and colleagues wrote. 

“Beyond screening patients for individual-level SDOH, neighborhood-level determinants of health should also be considered, as they are important mediators between the environment and the individual,” they added, calling for studies to better understand the specific neighborhood SDOH that drive the disparate outcomes. In practice, integration of these measures into medical records might inform clinicians which patients would benefit from social services or help guide quality improvement projects and community partnerships.

Wijarnpreecha had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Several coauthors reported research support, consulting/advisory work, or stock ownership for various private-sector companies.
 

Neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) are associated with the burden, comorbidities, and mortality of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic disease (MASLD). These health mediators should be considered along with individual SDOH in clinical care and healthcare quality and equity improvement, a large retrospective study of adults with MASLD at a multi-state healthcare institution concluded.

Across quartiles, patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (according to home addresses) vs the least disadvantaged had worse outcomes and were also disproportionately Hispanic, Black, and Native American/Alaska Native, more often Spanish-speaking in primary language, and more often uninsured or on Medicaid, according to Karn Wijarnpreecha, MD, MPH, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at University of Arizona College of Medicine–Phoenix, and colleagues writing in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Even after adjustment for measures in the Social Deprivation Index (SDI), the incidence of death, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus (DM), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was higher in Native American/Alaska Native patients compared with their non-Hispanic White counterparts. The SDI is a composite measure of seven demographic characteristics from the American Community Survey, with scores ranging from 1 to 100 and weighted based on characteristics from national percentile rankings.

Aligning with the growing prevalence of obesity and DM, MASLD has increased substantially over the past three decades, and is now the leading cause of chronic liver disease in this country and the world. 

This rise in prevalence has underscored health disparities in MASLD and prompted research into linkd between liver disease and SDOH, defined as the conditions under which people are born, grow, live, work, and age. These are fundamental drivers of health disparities, including those in MASLD.
 

Study Details

Primary outcomes were MASLD burden, mortality, and comorbidities by neighborhood SDOH, assessed using the SDI in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses.

A total of 69,191 adult patients (more than 50% female) diagnosed with MASLD were included, 45,003 of whom had at least 365 days of follow-up. They were treated from July 2012 to June 2023 in Banner Health Systems, a network that includes primary-, secondary-, and tertiary-care centers in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Nebraska, and California.

The median follow-up time was 48 months. Among patients across SDI quartiles (age range 49 to 62 years), 1390 patients (3.1%) died, 902 (2.0%) developed cirrhosis, 1087 (2.4%) developed LRE, 6537 (14.5%) developed DM, 2057 (4.6%) developed cancer, and 5409 (12.0%) developed MACE.

Those living in the most disadvantaged quartile of neighborhoods compared with the least had the following higher odds:

• cirrhosis, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42 (P < .001)
• any cardiovascular (CVD) disease, aOR, 1.20 (P < .001),
• coronary artery disease, aOR, 1.17 (P < .001)
• congestive heart failure, aOR, 1.43 (P < .001)
• cerebrovascular accident, aOR, 1.19 (P = .001)
• DM, aOR, 1.57 (P < .001)
• hypertension, aOR, 1.38 (P < .001).

They also had increased incidence of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47; P < .001), LRE (aHR, 1.31; P = .012), DM (aHR, 1.47; P < .001), and MACE (aHR, 1.24; P < .001). 

The study expands upon previous SDOH-related research in liver disease and is the largest analysis of neighborhood-level SDOH in patients with MASLD to date. “Our findings are consistent with a recent study by Chen et al of over 15,900 patients with MASLD in Michigan that found neighborhood-level social disadvantage was associated with increased mortality and incident LREs and CVD,” Wijarnpreecha and colleagues wrote. 

“Beyond screening patients for individual-level SDOH, neighborhood-level determinants of health should also be considered, as they are important mediators between the environment and the individual,” they added, calling for studies to better understand the specific neighborhood SDOH that drive the disparate outcomes. In practice, integration of these measures into medical records might inform clinicians which patients would benefit from social services or help guide quality improvement projects and community partnerships.

Wijarnpreecha had no conflicts of interest to disclose. Several coauthors reported research support, consulting/advisory work, or stock ownership for various private-sector companies.
 

A head-to-head comparison of the JAK inhibitor drug tofacitinib and chimeric monoclonal antibody infliximab in the treatment of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) shows that, contrary to concerns, tofacitinib is not associated with worse postoperative complications and in fact may reduce the risk of the need for colectomy.

“Tofacitinib has shown efficacy in managing ASUC, but concerns about postoperative complications have limited its adoption,” reported the authors in research published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.“This study shows that tofacitinib is safe and doesn’t impair wound healing or lead to more infections if the patient needs an urgent colectomy, which is unfortunately common in this population,” senior author Jeffrey A. Berinstein, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, told GI & Hepatology News. 

Recent treatment advances for UC have provided significant benefits in reducing the severity of symptoms; however, about a quarter of patients go on to experience flares, with fecal urgency, rectal bleeding, and severe abdominal pain of ASUC potentially requiring hospitalization.

The standard of care for those patients is rapid induction with intravenous (IV) corticosteroids; however, up to 30% of patients don’t respond to those interventions, and even with subsequent treatment of cyclosporine and infliximab helping to reduce the risk for an urgent colectomy, patients often don’t respond, and ultimately, up to a third of patients with ASUC end up having to receive a colectomy.

While JAK inhibitor therapies, including tofacitinib and upadacitinib, have recently emerged as potentially important treatment options in such cases, showing reductions in the risk for colectomy, concerns about the drugs’ downstream biologic effects have given many clinicians reservations about their use.

“Anecdotally, gastroenterologists and surgeons have expressed concern about JAK inhibitors leading to poor wound healing, as well as increasing both intraoperative and postoperative complications, despite limited data to support these claims,” the authors wrote.

To better understand those possible risks, first author Charlotte Larson, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of 109 patients hospitalized with ASUC at two centers in the US and 14 in France.

Of the patients, 41 were treated with tofacitinib and 68 with infliximab prior to colectomy. 

Among patients treated with tofacitinib, five (12.2%) received infliximab and four (9.8%) received cyclosporine rescue immediately prior to receiving tofacitinib during the index admission. In the infliximab group, one (1.5%) received rescue cyclosporine.

In a univariate analysis, the tofacitinib-treated patients showed significantly lower overall rates of postoperative complications than infliximab-treated patients (31.7% vs 64.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.33; P = .006).

The tofacitinib-treated group also had lower rates of serious postoperative complications (12% vs 28.9; OR, 0.20; P = .016).

After adjusting for multivariate factors including age, inflammatory burden, nutrition status, 90-day cumulative corticosteroid exposure and open surgery, there was a trend favoring tofacitinib but no statistically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of serious postoperative complications (P = .061). 

However, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications with tofacitinib was observed after the adjustment (odds ratio, 0.38; P = .023).

Importantly, a subanalysis showed that the 63.4% of tofacitinib-treated patients receiving the standard FDA-approved induction dose of 10 mg twice daily did indeed have significantly lower rates than infliximab-treated patients in terms of serious postoperative complications (OR, .10; P = .031), as well as overall postoperative complications (OR, 0.23; P = .003), whereas neither of the outcomes were significantly improved among the 36.6% of patients who received the higher-intensity thrice-daily tofacitinib dose (P = .3 and P = .4, respectively).

Further complicating the matter, in a previous case-control study that the research team conducted, it was the off-label, 10 mg thrice-daily dose of tofacitinib that performed favorably and was associated with a significantly lower risk for colectomy than the twice-daily dose (hazard ratio 0.28; P = .018); the twice-daily dose was not protective.

Berinstein added that a hypothesis for the benefits overall, with either dose, is that tofacitinib’s anti-inflammatory properties are key.

“We believe that lowering inflammation as much as possible, with the colon less inflamed, could be providing the benefit in lowering complications rate in surgery,” he explained.

Regarding the dosing, “it’s a careful trade-off,” Berinstein added. “Obviously, we want to avoid the need for a colectomy in the first place, as it is a life-changing surgery, but we don’t want to increase the risk of infections.” 

In other findings, the tofacitinib group had no increased risk for postoperative venous thrombotic embolisms (VTEs), which is important as tofacitinib exposure has previously been associated with an increased risk for VTEs independent of other prothrombotic factors common to patients with ASUC, including decreased ambulation, active inflammation, corticosteroid use, and major colorectal surgery.

“This observed absence of an increased VTE risk may alleviate some of the hypothetical postoperative safety concern attributed to JAK inhibitor therapy in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

Overall, the results underscore that “providers should feel comfortable using this medication if they need it and if they think it’s most likely to help their patients avoid colectomy,” Berinstein said.

“They should not give pause over concerns of postoperative complications because we didn’t show that,” he said.

Commenting on the study, Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, AGAF, of the Department of Medicine and Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that, in general, in patients with ASUC who fail on IV steroids, “the main treatments are infliximab, cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor like tofacitinib or upadacitinib, [and] knowing that if someone needs surgery, the complication rates are similar and that pre-operative use is okay is reassuring.”

Regarding the protective effect observed with some circumstances, “I don’t put too much weight into that,” he noted. “[One] could speculate that it is somehow related to faster half-life of the drug, and it might not sit around as long,” he said.

Feuerstein added that “the study design being retrospective is a limitation, but this is the best data we have to date.”

Berinstein and Feuerstein had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

A head-to-head comparison of the JAK inhibitor drug tofacitinib and chimeric monoclonal antibody infliximab in the treatment of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) shows that, contrary to concerns, tofacitinib is not associated with worse postoperative complications and in fact may reduce the risk of the need for colectomy.

“Tofacitinib has shown efficacy in managing ASUC, but concerns about postoperative complications have limited its adoption,” reported the authors in research published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.“This study shows that tofacitinib is safe and doesn’t impair wound healing or lead to more infections if the patient needs an urgent colectomy, which is unfortunately common in this population,” senior author Jeffrey A. Berinstein, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, told GI & Hepatology News. 

Recent treatment advances for UC have provided significant benefits in reducing the severity of symptoms; however, about a quarter of patients go on to experience flares, with fecal urgency, rectal bleeding, and severe abdominal pain of ASUC potentially requiring hospitalization.

The standard of care for those patients is rapid induction with intravenous (IV) corticosteroids; however, up to 30% of patients don’t respond to those interventions, and even with subsequent treatment of cyclosporine and infliximab helping to reduce the risk for an urgent colectomy, patients often don’t respond, and ultimately, up to a third of patients with ASUC end up having to receive a colectomy.

While JAK inhibitor therapies, including tofacitinib and upadacitinib, have recently emerged as potentially important treatment options in such cases, showing reductions in the risk for colectomy, concerns about the drugs’ downstream biologic effects have given many clinicians reservations about their use.

“Anecdotally, gastroenterologists and surgeons have expressed concern about JAK inhibitors leading to poor wound healing, as well as increasing both intraoperative and postoperative complications, despite limited data to support these claims,” the authors wrote.

To better understand those possible risks, first author Charlotte Larson, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of 109 patients hospitalized with ASUC at two centers in the US and 14 in France.

Of the patients, 41 were treated with tofacitinib and 68 with infliximab prior to colectomy. 

Among patients treated with tofacitinib, five (12.2%) received infliximab and four (9.8%) received cyclosporine rescue immediately prior to receiving tofacitinib during the index admission. In the infliximab group, one (1.5%) received rescue cyclosporine.

In a univariate analysis, the tofacitinib-treated patients showed significantly lower overall rates of postoperative complications than infliximab-treated patients (31.7% vs 64.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.33; P = .006).

The tofacitinib-treated group also had lower rates of serious postoperative complications (12% vs 28.9; OR, 0.20; P = .016).

After adjusting for multivariate factors including age, inflammatory burden, nutrition status, 90-day cumulative corticosteroid exposure and open surgery, there was a trend favoring tofacitinib but no statistically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of serious postoperative complications (P = .061). 

However, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications with tofacitinib was observed after the adjustment (odds ratio, 0.38; P = .023).

Importantly, a subanalysis showed that the 63.4% of tofacitinib-treated patients receiving the standard FDA-approved induction dose of 10 mg twice daily did indeed have significantly lower rates than infliximab-treated patients in terms of serious postoperative complications (OR, .10; P = .031), as well as overall postoperative complications (OR, 0.23; P = .003), whereas neither of the outcomes were significantly improved among the 36.6% of patients who received the higher-intensity thrice-daily tofacitinib dose (P = .3 and P = .4, respectively).

Further complicating the matter, in a previous case-control study that the research team conducted, it was the off-label, 10 mg thrice-daily dose of tofacitinib that performed favorably and was associated with a significantly lower risk for colectomy than the twice-daily dose (hazard ratio 0.28; P = .018); the twice-daily dose was not protective.

Berinstein added that a hypothesis for the benefits overall, with either dose, is that tofacitinib’s anti-inflammatory properties are key.

“We believe that lowering inflammation as much as possible, with the colon less inflamed, could be providing the benefit in lowering complications rate in surgery,” he explained.

Regarding the dosing, “it’s a careful trade-off,” Berinstein added. “Obviously, we want to avoid the need for a colectomy in the first place, as it is a life-changing surgery, but we don’t want to increase the risk of infections.” 

In other findings, the tofacitinib group had no increased risk for postoperative venous thrombotic embolisms (VTEs), which is important as tofacitinib exposure has previously been associated with an increased risk for VTEs independent of other prothrombotic factors common to patients with ASUC, including decreased ambulation, active inflammation, corticosteroid use, and major colorectal surgery.

“This observed absence of an increased VTE risk may alleviate some of the hypothetical postoperative safety concern attributed to JAK inhibitor therapy in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

Overall, the results underscore that “providers should feel comfortable using this medication if they need it and if they think it’s most likely to help their patients avoid colectomy,” Berinstein said.

“They should not give pause over concerns of postoperative complications because we didn’t show that,” he said.

Commenting on the study, Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, AGAF, of the Department of Medicine and Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that, in general, in patients with ASUC who fail on IV steroids, “the main treatments are infliximab, cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor like tofacitinib or upadacitinib, [and] knowing that if someone needs surgery, the complication rates are similar and that pre-operative use is okay is reassuring.”

Regarding the protective effect observed with some circumstances, “I don’t put too much weight into that,” he noted. “[One] could speculate that it is somehow related to faster half-life of the drug, and it might not sit around as long,” he said.

Feuerstein added that “the study design being retrospective is a limitation, but this is the best data we have to date.”

Berinstein and Feuerstein had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

A head-to-head comparison of the JAK inhibitor drug tofacitinib and chimeric monoclonal antibody infliximab in the treatment of acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) shows that, contrary to concerns, tofacitinib is not associated with worse postoperative complications and in fact may reduce the risk of the need for colectomy.

“Tofacitinib has shown efficacy in managing ASUC, but concerns about postoperative complications have limited its adoption,” reported the authors in research published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.“This study shows that tofacitinib is safe and doesn’t impair wound healing or lead to more infections if the patient needs an urgent colectomy, which is unfortunately common in this population,” senior author Jeffrey A. Berinstein, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, told GI & Hepatology News. 

Recent treatment advances for UC have provided significant benefits in reducing the severity of symptoms; however, about a quarter of patients go on to experience flares, with fecal urgency, rectal bleeding, and severe abdominal pain of ASUC potentially requiring hospitalization.

The standard of care for those patients is rapid induction with intravenous (IV) corticosteroids; however, up to 30% of patients don’t respond to those interventions, and even with subsequent treatment of cyclosporine and infliximab helping to reduce the risk for an urgent colectomy, patients often don’t respond, and ultimately, up to a third of patients with ASUC end up having to receive a colectomy.

While JAK inhibitor therapies, including tofacitinib and upadacitinib, have recently emerged as potentially important treatment options in such cases, showing reductions in the risk for colectomy, concerns about the drugs’ downstream biologic effects have given many clinicians reservations about their use.

“Anecdotally, gastroenterologists and surgeons have expressed concern about JAK inhibitors leading to poor wound healing, as well as increasing both intraoperative and postoperative complications, despite limited data to support these claims,” the authors wrote.

To better understand those possible risks, first author Charlotte Larson, MD, of the Department of Internal Medicine, Michigan Medicine, and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective, case-control study of 109 patients hospitalized with ASUC at two centers in the US and 14 in France.

Of the patients, 41 were treated with tofacitinib and 68 with infliximab prior to colectomy. 

Among patients treated with tofacitinib, five (12.2%) received infliximab and four (9.8%) received cyclosporine rescue immediately prior to receiving tofacitinib during the index admission. In the infliximab group, one (1.5%) received rescue cyclosporine.

In a univariate analysis, the tofacitinib-treated patients showed significantly lower overall rates of postoperative complications than infliximab-treated patients (31.7% vs 64.7%; odds ratio [OR], 0.33; P = .006).

The tofacitinib-treated group also had lower rates of serious postoperative complications (12% vs 28.9; OR, 0.20; P = .016).

After adjusting for multivariate factors including age, inflammatory burden, nutrition status, 90-day cumulative corticosteroid exposure and open surgery, there was a trend favoring tofacitinib but no statistically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of serious postoperative complications (P = .061). 

However, a significantly lower rate of overall postoperative complications with tofacitinib was observed after the adjustment (odds ratio, 0.38; P = .023).

Importantly, a subanalysis showed that the 63.4% of tofacitinib-treated patients receiving the standard FDA-approved induction dose of 10 mg twice daily did indeed have significantly lower rates than infliximab-treated patients in terms of serious postoperative complications (OR, .10; P = .031), as well as overall postoperative complications (OR, 0.23; P = .003), whereas neither of the outcomes were significantly improved among the 36.6% of patients who received the higher-intensity thrice-daily tofacitinib dose (P = .3 and P = .4, respectively).

Further complicating the matter, in a previous case-control study that the research team conducted, it was the off-label, 10 mg thrice-daily dose of tofacitinib that performed favorably and was associated with a significantly lower risk for colectomy than the twice-daily dose (hazard ratio 0.28; P = .018); the twice-daily dose was not protective.

Berinstein added that a hypothesis for the benefits overall, with either dose, is that tofacitinib’s anti-inflammatory properties are key.

“We believe that lowering inflammation as much as possible, with the colon less inflamed, could be providing the benefit in lowering complications rate in surgery,” he explained.

Regarding the dosing, “it’s a careful trade-off,” Berinstein added. “Obviously, we want to avoid the need for a colectomy in the first place, as it is a life-changing surgery, but we don’t want to increase the risk of infections.” 

In other findings, the tofacitinib group had no increased risk for postoperative venous thrombotic embolisms (VTEs), which is important as tofacitinib exposure has previously been associated with an increased risk for VTEs independent of other prothrombotic factors common to patients with ASUC, including decreased ambulation, active inflammation, corticosteroid use, and major colorectal surgery.

“This observed absence of an increased VTE risk may alleviate some of the hypothetical postoperative safety concern attributed to JAK inhibitor therapy in this high-risk population,” the authors wrote.

Overall, the results underscore that “providers should feel comfortable using this medication if they need it and if they think it’s most likely to help their patients avoid colectomy,” Berinstein said.

“They should not give pause over concerns of postoperative complications because we didn’t show that,” he said.

Commenting on the study, Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, AGAF, of the Department of Medicine and Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that, in general, in patients with ASUC who fail on IV steroids, “the main treatments are infliximab, cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor like tofacitinib or upadacitinib, [and] knowing that if someone needs surgery, the complication rates are similar and that pre-operative use is okay is reassuring.”

Regarding the protective effect observed with some circumstances, “I don’t put too much weight into that,” he noted. “[One] could speculate that it is somehow related to faster half-life of the drug, and it might not sit around as long,” he said.

Feuerstein added that “the study design being retrospective is a limitation, but this is the best data we have to date.”

Berinstein and Feuerstein had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

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

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

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

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

The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.

 

Growing Burden of Gut Disorders 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.

 

Growing Burden of Gut Disorders 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.

 

Growing Burden of Gut Disorders 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an early alert for three Medtronic pH-monitoring capsule devices. The notice follows two letters sent in June to customers by the devices’ manufacturer Medtronic and its subsidiary Given Imaging Inc., recommending that customers using certain Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Devices (lot numbers below) for esophageal pH monitoring be removed from all sites of use and sale.

All three of the capsule models listed below are thought to pose a potential risk because the capsules fail to attach to the esophagus’s mucosal wall or to detach from the delivery device as intended owing to a misapplication of adhesive during manufacture. The devices transmit pH data to a recorder attached to the waist of the patient, who interacts with the recorder to indicate symptoms, thereby allowing the physician to compare the symptoms with the occurrence of reflux episodes.

Risks associated with the devices include aspiration/inhalation, perforation of the esophagus, obstruction of the airway, hemorrhage/blood loss/bleeding, laceration of the esophagus, a delay in diagnosis, and foreign bodies remaining in the patient.

Medtronic has reported 33 serious injuries but no deaths associated with the devices.

The lot numbers of the three affected units, which should be identified and quarantined immediately are:

• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device, 5-pk, Product Number FGS-0635, Unique Device Identifier-Device Identifier (UDI-DI) 07290101369707
• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device 5-pk, FGS-0635, UDI-DI 10613994000009
• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device 1-pk, FGS-0636, UDI-DI 07290101369714

These lot identifiers can be found on both the 5-pks’ FGS-0635 outer labels and on the 1-pk FGS-036 individual unit. Customers are advised to return all unused affected products to Medtronic for replacement or credit. In addition, they should pass on this notice to all those who need to be aware within their organizations or to any organizations to which the affected products have been distributed.

They are also advised to check the FDA recall website above for updates as it continues to review information about this potentially high-risk device issue. 

Healthcare professionals with concerns or reports of adverse events can contact Medtronic at 800-448-3644 or MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an early alert for three Medtronic pH-monitoring capsule devices. The notice follows two letters sent in June to customers by the devices’ manufacturer Medtronic and its subsidiary Given Imaging Inc., recommending that customers using certain Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Devices (lot numbers below) for esophageal pH monitoring be removed from all sites of use and sale.

All three of the capsule models listed below are thought to pose a potential risk because the capsules fail to attach to the esophagus’s mucosal wall or to detach from the delivery device as intended owing to a misapplication of adhesive during manufacture. The devices transmit pH data to a recorder attached to the waist of the patient, who interacts with the recorder to indicate symptoms, thereby allowing the physician to compare the symptoms with the occurrence of reflux episodes.

Risks associated with the devices include aspiration/inhalation, perforation of the esophagus, obstruction of the airway, hemorrhage/blood loss/bleeding, laceration of the esophagus, a delay in diagnosis, and foreign bodies remaining in the patient.

Medtronic has reported 33 serious injuries but no deaths associated with the devices.

The lot numbers of the three affected units, which should be identified and quarantined immediately are:

• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device, 5-pk, Product Number FGS-0635, Unique Device Identifier-Device Identifier (UDI-DI) 07290101369707
• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device 5-pk, FGS-0635, UDI-DI 10613994000009
• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device 1-pk, FGS-0636, UDI-DI 07290101369714

These lot identifiers can be found on both the 5-pks’ FGS-0635 outer labels and on the 1-pk FGS-036 individual unit. Customers are advised to return all unused affected products to Medtronic for replacement or credit. In addition, they should pass on this notice to all those who need to be aware within their organizations or to any organizations to which the affected products have been distributed.

They are also advised to check the FDA recall website above for updates as it continues to review information about this potentially high-risk device issue. 

Healthcare professionals with concerns or reports of adverse events can contact Medtronic at 800-448-3644 or MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an early alert for three Medtronic pH-monitoring capsule devices. The notice follows two letters sent in June to customers by the devices’ manufacturer Medtronic and its subsidiary Given Imaging Inc., recommending that customers using certain Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Devices (lot numbers below) for esophageal pH monitoring be removed from all sites of use and sale.

All three of the capsule models listed below are thought to pose a potential risk because the capsules fail to attach to the esophagus’s mucosal wall or to detach from the delivery device as intended owing to a misapplication of adhesive during manufacture. The devices transmit pH data to a recorder attached to the waist of the patient, who interacts with the recorder to indicate symptoms, thereby allowing the physician to compare the symptoms with the occurrence of reflux episodes.

Risks associated with the devices include aspiration/inhalation, perforation of the esophagus, obstruction of the airway, hemorrhage/blood loss/bleeding, laceration of the esophagus, a delay in diagnosis, and foreign bodies remaining in the patient.

Medtronic has reported 33 serious injuries but no deaths associated with the devices.

The lot numbers of the three affected units, which should be identified and quarantined immediately are:

• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device, 5-pk, Product Number FGS-0635, Unique Device Identifier-Device Identifier (UDI-DI) 07290101369707
• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device 5-pk, FGS-0635, UDI-DI 10613994000009
• Bravo CF Capsule Delivery Device 1-pk, FGS-0636, UDI-DI 07290101369714

These lot identifiers can be found on both the 5-pks’ FGS-0635 outer labels and on the 1-pk FGS-036 individual unit. Customers are advised to return all unused affected products to Medtronic for replacement or credit. In addition, they should pass on this notice to all those who need to be aware within their organizations or to any organizations to which the affected products have been distributed.

They are also advised to check the FDA recall website above for updates as it continues to review information about this potentially high-risk device issue. 

Healthcare professionals with concerns or reports of adverse events can contact Medtronic at 800-448-3644 or MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments and therapies, and to discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.

A lack of funding can prevent talented individuals from pursuing a research career, thereby denying them the opportunity to conduct work that will ultimately benefit patients with critical needs.  

Donations to the AGA Research Foundation help support and fund investigators with a research grant in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

Treatment options for digestive diseases begin with rigorous research, but the limited funding available for physician-scientists to conduct research puts the field at risk of losing talented investigators.

As an AGA member, you have the power to make a difference. By increasing the number of talented women and men doing state-of-the-art research, you can help improve care for all patients suffering from digestive diseases.

Your gift to the AGA Research Foundation will catalyze discovery and career growth for a promising researcher in gastroenterology and hepatology. Please help us fund the next generation of GI researchers by donating today at https://foundation.gastro.org.







 

Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments and therapies, and to discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.

A lack of funding can prevent talented individuals from pursuing a research career, thereby denying them the opportunity to conduct work that will ultimately benefit patients with critical needs.  

Donations to the AGA Research Foundation help support and fund investigators with a research grant in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

Treatment options for digestive diseases begin with rigorous research, but the limited funding available for physician-scientists to conduct research puts the field at risk of losing talented investigators.

As an AGA member, you have the power to make a difference. By increasing the number of talented women and men doing state-of-the-art research, you can help improve care for all patients suffering from digestive diseases.

Your gift to the AGA Research Foundation will catalyze discovery and career growth for a promising researcher in gastroenterology and hepatology. Please help us fund the next generation of GI researchers by donating today at https://foundation.gastro.org.







 

Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments and therapies, and to discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.

A lack of funding can prevent talented individuals from pursuing a research career, thereby denying them the opportunity to conduct work that will ultimately benefit patients with critical needs.  

Donations to the AGA Research Foundation help support and fund investigators with a research grant in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.

Treatment options for digestive diseases begin with rigorous research, but the limited funding available for physician-scientists to conduct research puts the field at risk of losing talented investigators.

As an AGA member, you have the power to make a difference. By increasing the number of talented women and men doing state-of-the-art research, you can help improve care for all patients suffering from digestive diseases.

Your gift to the AGA Research Foundation will catalyze discovery and career growth for a promising researcher in gastroenterology and hepatology. Please help us fund the next generation of GI researchers by donating today at https://foundation.gastro.org.