User login
Nine VA Facilities to Open Research Trials for Psychedelics
Nine VA Facilities to Open Research Trials for Psychedelics
On Nov. 22, 2014, 8 years after he came back from Iraq with “crippling” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Jonathan Lubecky took his first dose of the psychedelic compound methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Lubecky, a Marine, Army, and National Guard veteran, described his path to MDMA therapy in in the New Horizons in Health podcast.
After 5 suicide attempts and “the hundreds of times I thought about it or stood on a bridge or had a plan,” he felt he had run out of options. Then, in a counseling session, a psychiatric intern slid a piece of paper across the table to him. It read “Google MDMA PTSD.”
Luckily for Lubecky, a space in a clinical trial opened up, in which he had 8 hours of talk therapy with specially trained therapists, combined with MDMA. “MDMA is a tool that opens up the mind, body and spirit,” he said, “so you can heal and process all those memories and traumas that are causing yourissues. It puts you in a middle place where you can talk about trauma without having panic attacks, without your body betraying you, and look at it from a different perspective.” said he added, “It’s like doing therapy while being hugged by everyone who loves you in a bathtub full of puppies licking your face.” In 2023, 9 years after that first dose, Lubecky said, “I’ve been PTSD free longer than I had it.”
And now, in 2025, the research into psychedelic therapy for veterans like Lubecky is taking another step forward according to a report by Military.com. Nine VA facilities, in the Bronx, Los Angeles, Omaha, Palo Alto, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, West Haven, and White River Junction, are participating in long-term studies to test the safety and clinical impact of psychedelic compounds for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and anxiety disorders.
Early trials from Johns Hopkins University, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and others found significant symptom reductions for some participants with chronic PTSD. MAPP2, the multisite phase 3 study that extended the findings of MAPP1, found that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo-assisted therapy. Notably, of the 52 participants (including 16 veterans) 45 (86%) achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 (71%) no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end. Despite the promising findings, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended against approving the treatment.
In 2024 the VA issued a request for applications for proposals from its network of VA researchers and academic institutions to gather “definitive scientific evidence” on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds, such as MDMA and psilocybin, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. It would be the first time since the 1960s that the VA had funded research on such compounds.
Funding proposals for such research have cycled in and out of Congress for years, but have gathered more steam in the last few years. The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Department of Defense to establish a process for funding clinical research into the use of certain psychedelic substances to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. In April 2024, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI), cochairs of the Psychedelics Advancing Therapies (PATH) caucus, introduced the Innovative Therapies Centers of Excellence Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would increase federally funded research on innovative therapies to treat veterans with PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression. It would also, if enacted, direct the VA to create ≥ 5 dedicated centers of excellence to study the therapeutic uses of psychedelic substances. The bill has also been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project.
The current administration has two strong high-level supporters of psychedelics research: VA Secretary Doug Collins and US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sec. Kennedy has castigated the FDA for what he calls “aggressive suppression” of alternative and complementary treatments, including psychedelics. This, although the FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA for treating PTSD and psilocybin for treating depression in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as well a pivotal draft guidance in 2023 for the development of psychedelic drugs for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and various medical conditions.
Collins, citing an “eye-opening” discussion with Kennedy, enthusiastically backs the research into psychedelics. In a May 2025 hearing that was mainly a series of testy exchanges about his proposed budget slashing, he emphasized the importance of keeping and expanding VA programs and studies on psychedelic treatments, something he has been advocating for since the beginning of his appointment. “We want to make sure we’re not closing off any outlet for a veteran who could be helped by these programs,” he said.
Taking the intern’s advice to look into MDMA, Jonathan Lubecky said, was one of the best decisions he’d ever made. But “it’s not the MDMA that fixes you,” he said. “It’s the therapy. It’s the therapist working with you and you doing the hard work.”
On Nov. 22, 2014, 8 years after he came back from Iraq with “crippling” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Jonathan Lubecky took his first dose of the psychedelic compound methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Lubecky, a Marine, Army, and National Guard veteran, described his path to MDMA therapy in in the New Horizons in Health podcast.
After 5 suicide attempts and “the hundreds of times I thought about it or stood on a bridge or had a plan,” he felt he had run out of options. Then, in a counseling session, a psychiatric intern slid a piece of paper across the table to him. It read “Google MDMA PTSD.”
Luckily for Lubecky, a space in a clinical trial opened up, in which he had 8 hours of talk therapy with specially trained therapists, combined with MDMA. “MDMA is a tool that opens up the mind, body and spirit,” he said, “so you can heal and process all those memories and traumas that are causing yourissues. It puts you in a middle place where you can talk about trauma without having panic attacks, without your body betraying you, and look at it from a different perspective.” said he added, “It’s like doing therapy while being hugged by everyone who loves you in a bathtub full of puppies licking your face.” In 2023, 9 years after that first dose, Lubecky said, “I’ve been PTSD free longer than I had it.”
And now, in 2025, the research into psychedelic therapy for veterans like Lubecky is taking another step forward according to a report by Military.com. Nine VA facilities, in the Bronx, Los Angeles, Omaha, Palo Alto, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, West Haven, and White River Junction, are participating in long-term studies to test the safety and clinical impact of psychedelic compounds for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and anxiety disorders.
Early trials from Johns Hopkins University, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and others found significant symptom reductions for some participants with chronic PTSD. MAPP2, the multisite phase 3 study that extended the findings of MAPP1, found that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo-assisted therapy. Notably, of the 52 participants (including 16 veterans) 45 (86%) achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 (71%) no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end. Despite the promising findings, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended against approving the treatment.
In 2024 the VA issued a request for applications for proposals from its network of VA researchers and academic institutions to gather “definitive scientific evidence” on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds, such as MDMA and psilocybin, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. It would be the first time since the 1960s that the VA had funded research on such compounds.
Funding proposals for such research have cycled in and out of Congress for years, but have gathered more steam in the last few years. The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Department of Defense to establish a process for funding clinical research into the use of certain psychedelic substances to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. In April 2024, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI), cochairs of the Psychedelics Advancing Therapies (PATH) caucus, introduced the Innovative Therapies Centers of Excellence Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would increase federally funded research on innovative therapies to treat veterans with PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression. It would also, if enacted, direct the VA to create ≥ 5 dedicated centers of excellence to study the therapeutic uses of psychedelic substances. The bill has also been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project.
The current administration has two strong high-level supporters of psychedelics research: VA Secretary Doug Collins and US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sec. Kennedy has castigated the FDA for what he calls “aggressive suppression” of alternative and complementary treatments, including psychedelics. This, although the FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA for treating PTSD and psilocybin for treating depression in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as well a pivotal draft guidance in 2023 for the development of psychedelic drugs for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and various medical conditions.
Collins, citing an “eye-opening” discussion with Kennedy, enthusiastically backs the research into psychedelics. In a May 2025 hearing that was mainly a series of testy exchanges about his proposed budget slashing, he emphasized the importance of keeping and expanding VA programs and studies on psychedelic treatments, something he has been advocating for since the beginning of his appointment. “We want to make sure we’re not closing off any outlet for a veteran who could be helped by these programs,” he said.
Taking the intern’s advice to look into MDMA, Jonathan Lubecky said, was one of the best decisions he’d ever made. But “it’s not the MDMA that fixes you,” he said. “It’s the therapy. It’s the therapist working with you and you doing the hard work.”
On Nov. 22, 2014, 8 years after he came back from Iraq with “crippling” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Jonathan Lubecky took his first dose of the psychedelic compound methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Lubecky, a Marine, Army, and National Guard veteran, described his path to MDMA therapy in in the New Horizons in Health podcast.
After 5 suicide attempts and “the hundreds of times I thought about it or stood on a bridge or had a plan,” he felt he had run out of options. Then, in a counseling session, a psychiatric intern slid a piece of paper across the table to him. It read “Google MDMA PTSD.”
Luckily for Lubecky, a space in a clinical trial opened up, in which he had 8 hours of talk therapy with specially trained therapists, combined with MDMA. “MDMA is a tool that opens up the mind, body and spirit,” he said, “so you can heal and process all those memories and traumas that are causing yourissues. It puts you in a middle place where you can talk about trauma without having panic attacks, without your body betraying you, and look at it from a different perspective.” said he added, “It’s like doing therapy while being hugged by everyone who loves you in a bathtub full of puppies licking your face.” In 2023, 9 years after that first dose, Lubecky said, “I’ve been PTSD free longer than I had it.”
And now, in 2025, the research into psychedelic therapy for veterans like Lubecky is taking another step forward according to a report by Military.com. Nine VA facilities, in the Bronx, Los Angeles, Omaha, Palo Alto, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, West Haven, and White River Junction, are participating in long-term studies to test the safety and clinical impact of psychedelic compounds for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and anxiety disorders.
Early trials from Johns Hopkins University, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and others found significant symptom reductions for some participants with chronic PTSD. MAPP2, the multisite phase 3 study that extended the findings of MAPP1, found that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo-assisted therapy. Notably, of the 52 participants (including 16 veterans) 45 (86%) achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 (71%) no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end. Despite the promising findings, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended against approving the treatment.
In 2024 the VA issued a request for applications for proposals from its network of VA researchers and academic institutions to gather “definitive scientific evidence” on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds, such as MDMA and psilocybin, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. It would be the first time since the 1960s that the VA had funded research on such compounds.
Funding proposals for such research have cycled in and out of Congress for years, but have gathered more steam in the last few years. The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Department of Defense to establish a process for funding clinical research into the use of certain psychedelic substances to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. In April 2024, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI), cochairs of the Psychedelics Advancing Therapies (PATH) caucus, introduced the Innovative Therapies Centers of Excellence Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would increase federally funded research on innovative therapies to treat veterans with PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression. It would also, if enacted, direct the VA to create ≥ 5 dedicated centers of excellence to study the therapeutic uses of psychedelic substances. The bill has also been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project.
The current administration has two strong high-level supporters of psychedelics research: VA Secretary Doug Collins and US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sec. Kennedy has castigated the FDA for what he calls “aggressive suppression” of alternative and complementary treatments, including psychedelics. This, although the FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA for treating PTSD and psilocybin for treating depression in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as well a pivotal draft guidance in 2023 for the development of psychedelic drugs for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and various medical conditions.
Collins, citing an “eye-opening” discussion with Kennedy, enthusiastically backs the research into psychedelics. In a May 2025 hearing that was mainly a series of testy exchanges about his proposed budget slashing, he emphasized the importance of keeping and expanding VA programs and studies on psychedelic treatments, something he has been advocating for since the beginning of his appointment. “We want to make sure we’re not closing off any outlet for a veteran who could be helped by these programs,” he said.
Taking the intern’s advice to look into MDMA, Jonathan Lubecky said, was one of the best decisions he’d ever made. But “it’s not the MDMA that fixes you,” he said. “It’s the therapy. It’s the therapist working with you and you doing the hard work.”
Nine VA Facilities to Open Research Trials for Psychedelics
Nine VA Facilities to Open Research Trials for Psychedelics
Pediatric Wilson’s Disease Carries Higher Risk of Worse Outcomes
, according to data from a large single-center study in India.
These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.
“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”
To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024.
Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available.
Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.
Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.
The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups.
Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.
Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.
Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort.
No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.
“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.
The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Wilson’s disease (WD), initially described in 1912 by Dr. Kinnier Wilson, continues to pose a significant challenge to clinicians over a century later. This autosomal recessive disorder is characterized by mutations in ATP7B gene, which impair the body’s capacity to transport and eliminate copper effectively. Although classified as rare, WD has a notable clinical impact. It is estimated to affect approximately 1 in every 30,000 individuals globally. Given the disease’s highly variable presentation, many individuals likely remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, and the consequences of delayed treatment are substantial.
The presented study by Kulkarni and colleagues offers a valuable contribution to the understanding of WD, particularly emphasizing the major clinical differences between pediatric and adult patients, and the implications of these differences for management and survival. As the authors note, transplant-free survival was significantly lower in children (72%) compared with adults (87.7%), reflecting the more aggressive natural history at younger ages. This reinforces the need for earlier detection and prompt initiation of chelation therapy when WD is suspected. Another observation is poor transplant-free survival among patients with acute liver failure with plasma exchange (40.5%), which highlights its role may be as a bridge to liver transplant. The genetic analysis is particularly interesting. Although over half of patients carried homozygous or compound heterozygous ATP7B variants, there was no clear genotype–phenotype correlation. This aligns with prior WD literature.
The investigators acknowledge limitations like the center’s focus on liver disease likely selected for hepatically severe WD, and the retrospective design limits completeness of data. Nevertheless, its strengths lie in the relatively large single-center cohort, use of standardized diagnostic criteria, and detailed genetic analysis in 70% of cases. The study reinforces several practical takeaways. Children require heightened vigilance, as their disease often presents suddenly, and timely referral for transplant evaluation is critical in ALF presentations. Long-term survival hinges on early detection and consistent chelation therapy.
Hrishikesh Samant, MD, is medical director, hepatology, at Ochsner Medical Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and associate professor of gastroenterology, LSU Health and Xavier Ochsner College of Medicine, New Orleans. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Wilson’s disease (WD), initially described in 1912 by Dr. Kinnier Wilson, continues to pose a significant challenge to clinicians over a century later. This autosomal recessive disorder is characterized by mutations in ATP7B gene, which impair the body’s capacity to transport and eliminate copper effectively. Although classified as rare, WD has a notable clinical impact. It is estimated to affect approximately 1 in every 30,000 individuals globally. Given the disease’s highly variable presentation, many individuals likely remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, and the consequences of delayed treatment are substantial.
The presented study by Kulkarni and colleagues offers a valuable contribution to the understanding of WD, particularly emphasizing the major clinical differences between pediatric and adult patients, and the implications of these differences for management and survival. As the authors note, transplant-free survival was significantly lower in children (72%) compared with adults (87.7%), reflecting the more aggressive natural history at younger ages. This reinforces the need for earlier detection and prompt initiation of chelation therapy when WD is suspected. Another observation is poor transplant-free survival among patients with acute liver failure with plasma exchange (40.5%), which highlights its role may be as a bridge to liver transplant. The genetic analysis is particularly interesting. Although over half of patients carried homozygous or compound heterozygous ATP7B variants, there was no clear genotype–phenotype correlation. This aligns with prior WD literature.
The investigators acknowledge limitations like the center’s focus on liver disease likely selected for hepatically severe WD, and the retrospective design limits completeness of data. Nevertheless, its strengths lie in the relatively large single-center cohort, use of standardized diagnostic criteria, and detailed genetic analysis in 70% of cases. The study reinforces several practical takeaways. Children require heightened vigilance, as their disease often presents suddenly, and timely referral for transplant evaluation is critical in ALF presentations. Long-term survival hinges on early detection and consistent chelation therapy.
Hrishikesh Samant, MD, is medical director, hepatology, at Ochsner Medical Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and associate professor of gastroenterology, LSU Health and Xavier Ochsner College of Medicine, New Orleans. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Wilson’s disease (WD), initially described in 1912 by Dr. Kinnier Wilson, continues to pose a significant challenge to clinicians over a century later. This autosomal recessive disorder is characterized by mutations in ATP7B gene, which impair the body’s capacity to transport and eliminate copper effectively. Although classified as rare, WD has a notable clinical impact. It is estimated to affect approximately 1 in every 30,000 individuals globally. Given the disease’s highly variable presentation, many individuals likely remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, and the consequences of delayed treatment are substantial.
The presented study by Kulkarni and colleagues offers a valuable contribution to the understanding of WD, particularly emphasizing the major clinical differences between pediatric and adult patients, and the implications of these differences for management and survival. As the authors note, transplant-free survival was significantly lower in children (72%) compared with adults (87.7%), reflecting the more aggressive natural history at younger ages. This reinforces the need for earlier detection and prompt initiation of chelation therapy when WD is suspected. Another observation is poor transplant-free survival among patients with acute liver failure with plasma exchange (40.5%), which highlights its role may be as a bridge to liver transplant. The genetic analysis is particularly interesting. Although over half of patients carried homozygous or compound heterozygous ATP7B variants, there was no clear genotype–phenotype correlation. This aligns with prior WD literature.
The investigators acknowledge limitations like the center’s focus on liver disease likely selected for hepatically severe WD, and the retrospective design limits completeness of data. Nevertheless, its strengths lie in the relatively large single-center cohort, use of standardized diagnostic criteria, and detailed genetic analysis in 70% of cases. The study reinforces several practical takeaways. Children require heightened vigilance, as their disease often presents suddenly, and timely referral for transplant evaluation is critical in ALF presentations. Long-term survival hinges on early detection and consistent chelation therapy.
Hrishikesh Samant, MD, is medical director, hepatology, at Ochsner Medical Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and associate professor of gastroenterology, LSU Health and Xavier Ochsner College of Medicine, New Orleans. He declared no conflicts of interest.
, according to data from a large single-center study in India.
These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.
“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”
To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024.
Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available.
Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.
Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.
The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups.
Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.
Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.
Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort.
No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.
“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.
The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
, according to data from a large single-center study in India.
These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.
“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”
To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024.
Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available.
Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.
Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.
The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups.
Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.
Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.
Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort.
No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.
“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.
The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Agent Orange Exposure Increases Lymphoma Risk in Million Veteran Program Cohort
TOPLINE: Agent Orange exposure was associated with a 26% to 71% increased risk for multiple lymphoid cancers in veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veterans Program (MVP), while genetic predisposition independently raised risk by 12% to 81% across different lymphoma subtypes. A case-controlled analysis of 255,155 veterans found no significant interaction between genetic risk scores and Agent Orange exposure.
METHODOLOGY:
A case-control study included 255,155 non-Hispanic White veterans (median age 67 years, 92.5% male) enrolled in the VA MVP with genotype and Agent Orange exposure data.
Researchers analyzed five lymphoid malignant neoplasm subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and multiple myeloma diagnosed from January 1965 through June 2024.
Agent Orange exposure was determined through self-reported survey responses, while polygenic risk scores were derived from genome-wide association studies of lymphoid malignant neoplasms.
Analysis included adjustments for age at enrollment, sex, and the first 10 genetic principal components in logistic regression models evaluating Agent Orange exposure, polygenic risk scores, and their potential interaction.
TAKEAWAY:
Agent Orange exposure significantly increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.53), follicular lymphoma (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.11), and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.86).
Polygenic risk scores were independently associated with all lymphoma subtypes, with strongest associations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.70-1.93) and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.52).
Analysis in African American participants showed similar associations for multiple myeloma with both Agent Orange exposure (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07) and polygenic risk scores (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.49).
According to the researchers, no significant polygenic risk score and Agent Orange exposure interactions were observed for any lymphoma subtype.
IN PRACTICE: "Our study addressed the public health concerns surrounding Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasms, finding that both Agent Orange exposure and polygenic risk are independently associated with disease, suggesting potentially distinct and additive pathways that merit further investigation," wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Californiaand was published online on August 13 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, while this represents the largest case-control study of Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasm risk, the power to detect interaction associations in specific subtypes might be limited. Self-reported Agent Orange exposure data may have introduced survival bias, particularly in aggressive subtypes, as patients with aggressive tumors may have died before joining the MVP. Additionally, about half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoid malignant neoplasms before self-reporting Agent Orange exposure, potentially introducing recall bias.
DISCLOSURES: The research was supported by a Veterans Affairs Career Development Award Xueyi Teng, PhD, received grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research Postdoc Fellowship during the study.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: Agent Orange exposure was associated with a 26% to 71% increased risk for multiple lymphoid cancers in veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veterans Program (MVP), while genetic predisposition independently raised risk by 12% to 81% across different lymphoma subtypes. A case-controlled analysis of 255,155 veterans found no significant interaction between genetic risk scores and Agent Orange exposure.
METHODOLOGY:
A case-control study included 255,155 non-Hispanic White veterans (median age 67 years, 92.5% male) enrolled in the VA MVP with genotype and Agent Orange exposure data.
Researchers analyzed five lymphoid malignant neoplasm subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and multiple myeloma diagnosed from January 1965 through June 2024.
Agent Orange exposure was determined through self-reported survey responses, while polygenic risk scores were derived from genome-wide association studies of lymphoid malignant neoplasms.
Analysis included adjustments for age at enrollment, sex, and the first 10 genetic principal components in logistic regression models evaluating Agent Orange exposure, polygenic risk scores, and their potential interaction.
TAKEAWAY:
Agent Orange exposure significantly increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.53), follicular lymphoma (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.11), and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.86).
Polygenic risk scores were independently associated with all lymphoma subtypes, with strongest associations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.70-1.93) and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.52).
Analysis in African American participants showed similar associations for multiple myeloma with both Agent Orange exposure (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07) and polygenic risk scores (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.49).
According to the researchers, no significant polygenic risk score and Agent Orange exposure interactions were observed for any lymphoma subtype.
IN PRACTICE: "Our study addressed the public health concerns surrounding Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasms, finding that both Agent Orange exposure and polygenic risk are independently associated with disease, suggesting potentially distinct and additive pathways that merit further investigation," wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Californiaand was published online on August 13 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, while this represents the largest case-control study of Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasm risk, the power to detect interaction associations in specific subtypes might be limited. Self-reported Agent Orange exposure data may have introduced survival bias, particularly in aggressive subtypes, as patients with aggressive tumors may have died before joining the MVP. Additionally, about half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoid malignant neoplasms before self-reporting Agent Orange exposure, potentially introducing recall bias.
DISCLOSURES: The research was supported by a Veterans Affairs Career Development Award Xueyi Teng, PhD, received grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research Postdoc Fellowship during the study.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: Agent Orange exposure was associated with a 26% to 71% increased risk for multiple lymphoid cancers in veterans enrolled in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Million Veterans Program (MVP), while genetic predisposition independently raised risk by 12% to 81% across different lymphoma subtypes. A case-controlled analysis of 255,155 veterans found no significant interaction between genetic risk scores and Agent Orange exposure.
METHODOLOGY:
A case-control study included 255,155 non-Hispanic White veterans (median age 67 years, 92.5% male) enrolled in the VA MVP with genotype and Agent Orange exposure data.
Researchers analyzed five lymphoid malignant neoplasm subtypes: chronic lymphocytic leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, marginal zone lymphoma, and multiple myeloma diagnosed from January 1965 through June 2024.
Agent Orange exposure was determined through self-reported survey responses, while polygenic risk scores were derived from genome-wide association studies of lymphoid malignant neoplasms.
Analysis included adjustments for age at enrollment, sex, and the first 10 genetic principal components in logistic regression models evaluating Agent Orange exposure, polygenic risk scores, and their potential interaction.
TAKEAWAY:
Agent Orange exposure significantly increased risk for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.40-1.84), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.53), follicular lymphoma (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.39-2.11), and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.35-1.86).
Polygenic risk scores were independently associated with all lymphoma subtypes, with strongest associations for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.70-1.93) and multiple myeloma (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.31-1.52).
Analysis in African American participants showed similar associations for multiple myeloma with both Agent Orange exposure (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.07) and polygenic risk scores (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.49).
According to the researchers, no significant polygenic risk score and Agent Orange exposure interactions were observed for any lymphoma subtype.
IN PRACTICE: "Our study addressed the public health concerns surrounding Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasms, finding that both Agent Orange exposure and polygenic risk are independently associated with disease, suggesting potentially distinct and additive pathways that merit further investigation," wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine and the Tibor Rubin Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Long Beach, Californiaand was published online on August 13 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, while this represents the largest case-control study of Agent Orange exposure and lymphoid malignant neoplasm risk, the power to detect interaction associations in specific subtypes might be limited. Self-reported Agent Orange exposure data may have introduced survival bias, particularly in aggressive subtypes, as patients with aggressive tumors may have died before joining the MVP. Additionally, about half of the patients were diagnosed with lymphoid malignant neoplasms before self-reporting Agent Orange exposure, potentially introducing recall bias.
DISCLOSURES: The research was supported by a Veterans Affairs Career Development Award Xueyi Teng, PhD, received grants from the George E. Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research Postdoc Fellowship during the study.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Identical Survival for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Vets With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer
Abiraterone and enzalutamide showed identical survival outcomes when used as first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to a new study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data. The report represents the first head-to-head clinical analysis of these commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors.
Among 1258 veterans treated with abiraterone and 311 treated with enzalutamide, median overall survival was 36.2 months for both drugs. Patients were followed for a mean of 28.7 months (abiraterone) and 30.8 months (enzalutamide), reported by Martin W. Schoen, MD, MPH, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine and the St. Louis VA Medical Center, in JAMA Network Open.
Notably, there was no significant difference in outcomes among Black veterans, who often have poorer outcomes in prostate cancer, and in patients with cardiovascular disease.
“This is the first direct comparison of abiraterone and enzalutamide for mHSPC in a clinical practice setting,” Schoen told Federal Practitioner. “At the population level, there are no differences based on initial treatment choice.”
Abiraterone Is Preferred in the VA Due to Cost
According to Schoen, abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors to treat mHSPC within the VA. A 2025 study by Schoen and colleagues found that 53.7% of veterans with mHSPC in 2022 received androgen receptor inhibitor therapy, up from 16.9% in 2017.
“In the VA, the preference for most patients is abiraterone since it is the least expensive agent,” he said. A generic version has been available for several years.
Additionally, abiraterone “has been on the market for the longest, and therefore clinicians are familiar with its use,” Schoen said. However, “clinicians have little idea of the comparative efficacy between these 2 agents,” he added.
The authors suggest that the cost and toxicities of the medications should guide clinician decisions, Schoen said. “There is data that abiraterone may worsen diabetes, since it is given with prednisone and could increase the risk of cardiovascular events,” he said.
He added that 2 newer drugs, apalutamide and darolutamide, are also “viable options.” Chemotherapies and certain targeted drugs are also available, “but they are only used in a select group of patients.”
Outside Specialist: Diverse Study Population Is a Plus
Hematologist-oncologist Natalie Reizine, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, told Federal Practitioner that the real-world data are valuable given the limitations of clinical trial populations.
“It’s difficult to compare clinical trials because they enroll different groups of patients,” she said. And, she said, they often exclude patients with significant comorbidities. “If they have bad cardiovascular disease, for instance, or poorly controlled diabetes, they're excluded from the clinical trial. But in real life, many of our patients have other medical problems that we have to manage.”
Reizine also emphasized the significance of the study’s diverse patient population. “Black men are very underrepresented in clinical trials. Many clinical trials that lead to drug approval will have only few or no Black men at all, yet these drugs go on to be widely prescribed to all men with prostate cancer.”
Results Are ‘Reassuring’
Reizine described the overall study findings as “reassuring,” especially in light of “studies that show that abiraterone and prednisone may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. This study showed that in this VA population, even for patients who had cardiovascular disease, there was not a difference in how they did.”
As for choosing between agents, she recommended considering comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. “One of the big reasons that you may not be able to safely prescribe enzalutamide, for instance, is if a patient is on an anticoagulant, which is incredibly common in cancer patients. Enzalutamide has more drug-drug interactions than abiraterone and prednisone.”
Study Demographics and Findings
The study included all patients with mHSPC who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2017 and April 2023.
Median ages were 73 (abiraterone) and 74 years (enzalutamide, P = .29). Racial distribution was similar between groups: abiraterone (68.1% White, 25.0% Black, 6.9% other/unknown) and enzalutamide (66.6% White, 27.0% Black, 6.4% other/unknown; P = .74). Ethnicity was 89.2% non-Hispanic, 4.4% Hispanic, and 6.4% unknown in the abiraterone group vs 88.4% non-Hispanic, 3.5% Hispanic, and 8.0% unknown in the enzalutamide group (P = .50).
The groups had similar rates of the most common comorbidities: diabetes (40.5% vs 46.3%, respectively, P = .07), peripheral vascular disease (40.2% vs 37.6%, respectively, P = .44), and chronic pulmonary disease (37.0% vs 40.5%, P = .29).
In an inverse probability weighting analysis with abiraterone as reference, weighted median overall survival was comparable across the entire cohort (36.2 months, P = .32), Black veterans (39.7 months, P = .90), and those with cardiovascular disease (31.5 months, P = .30).
The authors noted limitations such as the observational cohort design and data constraints.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Blavatnik Family Foundation.
Schoen discloses relationships with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Astellas, and US Department of Defense. Other authors disclose relationships with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Seagen, Bellicum, and BMS.
Outside the submitted work. Reizine discloses relationships with the US Department of Defense, Sanofi, Exelexis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, and Tempus.
Abiraterone and enzalutamide showed identical survival outcomes when used as first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to a new study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data. The report represents the first head-to-head clinical analysis of these commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors.
Among 1258 veterans treated with abiraterone and 311 treated with enzalutamide, median overall survival was 36.2 months for both drugs. Patients were followed for a mean of 28.7 months (abiraterone) and 30.8 months (enzalutamide), reported by Martin W. Schoen, MD, MPH, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine and the St. Louis VA Medical Center, in JAMA Network Open.
Notably, there was no significant difference in outcomes among Black veterans, who often have poorer outcomes in prostate cancer, and in patients with cardiovascular disease.
“This is the first direct comparison of abiraterone and enzalutamide for mHSPC in a clinical practice setting,” Schoen told Federal Practitioner. “At the population level, there are no differences based on initial treatment choice.”
Abiraterone Is Preferred in the VA Due to Cost
According to Schoen, abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors to treat mHSPC within the VA. A 2025 study by Schoen and colleagues found that 53.7% of veterans with mHSPC in 2022 received androgen receptor inhibitor therapy, up from 16.9% in 2017.
“In the VA, the preference for most patients is abiraterone since it is the least expensive agent,” he said. A generic version has been available for several years.
Additionally, abiraterone “has been on the market for the longest, and therefore clinicians are familiar with its use,” Schoen said. However, “clinicians have little idea of the comparative efficacy between these 2 agents,” he added.
The authors suggest that the cost and toxicities of the medications should guide clinician decisions, Schoen said. “There is data that abiraterone may worsen diabetes, since it is given with prednisone and could increase the risk of cardiovascular events,” he said.
He added that 2 newer drugs, apalutamide and darolutamide, are also “viable options.” Chemotherapies and certain targeted drugs are also available, “but they are only used in a select group of patients.”
Outside Specialist: Diverse Study Population Is a Plus
Hematologist-oncologist Natalie Reizine, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, told Federal Practitioner that the real-world data are valuable given the limitations of clinical trial populations.
“It’s difficult to compare clinical trials because they enroll different groups of patients,” she said. And, she said, they often exclude patients with significant comorbidities. “If they have bad cardiovascular disease, for instance, or poorly controlled diabetes, they're excluded from the clinical trial. But in real life, many of our patients have other medical problems that we have to manage.”
Reizine also emphasized the significance of the study’s diverse patient population. “Black men are very underrepresented in clinical trials. Many clinical trials that lead to drug approval will have only few or no Black men at all, yet these drugs go on to be widely prescribed to all men with prostate cancer.”
Results Are ‘Reassuring’
Reizine described the overall study findings as “reassuring,” especially in light of “studies that show that abiraterone and prednisone may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. This study showed that in this VA population, even for patients who had cardiovascular disease, there was not a difference in how they did.”
As for choosing between agents, she recommended considering comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. “One of the big reasons that you may not be able to safely prescribe enzalutamide, for instance, is if a patient is on an anticoagulant, which is incredibly common in cancer patients. Enzalutamide has more drug-drug interactions than abiraterone and prednisone.”
Study Demographics and Findings
The study included all patients with mHSPC who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2017 and April 2023.
Median ages were 73 (abiraterone) and 74 years (enzalutamide, P = .29). Racial distribution was similar between groups: abiraterone (68.1% White, 25.0% Black, 6.9% other/unknown) and enzalutamide (66.6% White, 27.0% Black, 6.4% other/unknown; P = .74). Ethnicity was 89.2% non-Hispanic, 4.4% Hispanic, and 6.4% unknown in the abiraterone group vs 88.4% non-Hispanic, 3.5% Hispanic, and 8.0% unknown in the enzalutamide group (P = .50).
The groups had similar rates of the most common comorbidities: diabetes (40.5% vs 46.3%, respectively, P = .07), peripheral vascular disease (40.2% vs 37.6%, respectively, P = .44), and chronic pulmonary disease (37.0% vs 40.5%, P = .29).
In an inverse probability weighting analysis with abiraterone as reference, weighted median overall survival was comparable across the entire cohort (36.2 months, P = .32), Black veterans (39.7 months, P = .90), and those with cardiovascular disease (31.5 months, P = .30).
The authors noted limitations such as the observational cohort design and data constraints.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Blavatnik Family Foundation.
Schoen discloses relationships with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Astellas, and US Department of Defense. Other authors disclose relationships with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Seagen, Bellicum, and BMS.
Outside the submitted work. Reizine discloses relationships with the US Department of Defense, Sanofi, Exelexis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, and Tempus.
Abiraterone and enzalutamide showed identical survival outcomes when used as first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), according to a new study using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) data. The report represents the first head-to-head clinical analysis of these commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors.
Among 1258 veterans treated with abiraterone and 311 treated with enzalutamide, median overall survival was 36.2 months for both drugs. Patients were followed for a mean of 28.7 months (abiraterone) and 30.8 months (enzalutamide), reported by Martin W. Schoen, MD, MPH, from Saint Louis University School of Medicine and the St. Louis VA Medical Center, in JAMA Network Open.
Notably, there was no significant difference in outcomes among Black veterans, who often have poorer outcomes in prostate cancer, and in patients with cardiovascular disease.
“This is the first direct comparison of abiraterone and enzalutamide for mHSPC in a clinical practice setting,” Schoen told Federal Practitioner. “At the population level, there are no differences based on initial treatment choice.”
Abiraterone Is Preferred in the VA Due to Cost
According to Schoen, abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most commonly used androgen receptor inhibitors to treat mHSPC within the VA. A 2025 study by Schoen and colleagues found that 53.7% of veterans with mHSPC in 2022 received androgen receptor inhibitor therapy, up from 16.9% in 2017.
“In the VA, the preference for most patients is abiraterone since it is the least expensive agent,” he said. A generic version has been available for several years.
Additionally, abiraterone “has been on the market for the longest, and therefore clinicians are familiar with its use,” Schoen said. However, “clinicians have little idea of the comparative efficacy between these 2 agents,” he added.
The authors suggest that the cost and toxicities of the medications should guide clinician decisions, Schoen said. “There is data that abiraterone may worsen diabetes, since it is given with prednisone and could increase the risk of cardiovascular events,” he said.
He added that 2 newer drugs, apalutamide and darolutamide, are also “viable options.” Chemotherapies and certain targeted drugs are also available, “but they are only used in a select group of patients.”
Outside Specialist: Diverse Study Population Is a Plus
Hematologist-oncologist Natalie Reizine, MD, of the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, who was not involved in the study, told Federal Practitioner that the real-world data are valuable given the limitations of clinical trial populations.
“It’s difficult to compare clinical trials because they enroll different groups of patients,” she said. And, she said, they often exclude patients with significant comorbidities. “If they have bad cardiovascular disease, for instance, or poorly controlled diabetes, they're excluded from the clinical trial. But in real life, many of our patients have other medical problems that we have to manage.”
Reizine also emphasized the significance of the study’s diverse patient population. “Black men are very underrepresented in clinical trials. Many clinical trials that lead to drug approval will have only few or no Black men at all, yet these drugs go on to be widely prescribed to all men with prostate cancer.”
Results Are ‘Reassuring’
Reizine described the overall study findings as “reassuring,” especially in light of “studies that show that abiraterone and prednisone may be associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes. This study showed that in this VA population, even for patients who had cardiovascular disease, there was not a difference in how they did.”
As for choosing between agents, she recommended considering comorbidities and potential drug-drug interactions. “One of the big reasons that you may not be able to safely prescribe enzalutamide, for instance, is if a patient is on an anticoagulant, which is incredibly common in cancer patients. Enzalutamide has more drug-drug interactions than abiraterone and prednisone.”
Study Demographics and Findings
The study included all patients with mHSPC who initiated abiraterone or enzalutamide between July 2017 and April 2023.
Median ages were 73 (abiraterone) and 74 years (enzalutamide, P = .29). Racial distribution was similar between groups: abiraterone (68.1% White, 25.0% Black, 6.9% other/unknown) and enzalutamide (66.6% White, 27.0% Black, 6.4% other/unknown; P = .74). Ethnicity was 89.2% non-Hispanic, 4.4% Hispanic, and 6.4% unknown in the abiraterone group vs 88.4% non-Hispanic, 3.5% Hispanic, and 8.0% unknown in the enzalutamide group (P = .50).
The groups had similar rates of the most common comorbidities: diabetes (40.5% vs 46.3%, respectively, P = .07), peripheral vascular disease (40.2% vs 37.6%, respectively, P = .44), and chronic pulmonary disease (37.0% vs 40.5%, P = .29).
In an inverse probability weighting analysis with abiraterone as reference, weighted median overall survival was comparable across the entire cohort (36.2 months, P = .32), Black veterans (39.7 months, P = .90), and those with cardiovascular disease (31.5 months, P = .30).
The authors noted limitations such as the observational cohort design and data constraints.
The study was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Conquer Cancer Foundation, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Blavatnik Family Foundation.
Schoen discloses relationships with the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Astellas, and US Department of Defense. Other authors disclose relationships with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Pfizer, Exelixis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Merck, Seagen, Bellicum, and BMS.
Outside the submitted work. Reizine discloses relationships with the US Department of Defense, Sanofi, Exelexis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Janssen, Merck, and Tempus.
Lower Cancer Risk in Veterans With COVID-19 Infection
TOPLINE: COVID-19 infection is associated with a 25% reduction in cancer risk over 3 years among veterans who survived the initial infection. This protective effect was observed across sexes and racial groups, with stronger benefits seen in older patients and those with mild disease.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing Veterans who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, to those who tested negative.
Analysis included 499,396 veterans, with 88,590 (17.2%) COVID-19 positive and 427,566 (82.8%) COVID-19 negative patients, with mean (SD) ages of 57.9 (16.4) and 59.5 (15.8) years, respectively.
Investigators utilized Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine the hazard ratio of new cancer diagnosis within a three-year follow-up period.
Patient characteristics included age, race, ethnicity, sex, BMI, smoking status, and various comorbidities as covariates in the analysis.
TAKEAWAY:
For patients surviving ≥ 30 days after COVID-19 testing, infection was associated with a 25% reduction in cancer hazard (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).
The reduction in cancer risk was similar across sexes and races, with the exception of Asians, and showed greater decreases with advancing age above 45 years.
Patients with mild COVID-19 showed the strongest reduction in cancer risk (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70-0.74), while those with moderate COVID-19 showed an 11% reduction (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93), and severe COVID-19 showed no significant reduction in cancer risk.
IN PRACTICE: "Regarding age, the incidence of cancer appeared to decrease with each decade of life in the COVID-19 group compared to that in the non-exposed group,” the authors noted. “This is surprising, given that cancer diagnoses typically increase with age.”
SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the Miami Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center and was published online on August 25 in PLoS One.
LIMITATIONS: The findings of this retrospective and observational study should be interpreted with caution. Results may not be generalizable beyond the predominantly male, older veteran population. The 3-year follow-up period may be insufficient to fully understand long-term cancer incidence patterns. Researchers could not capture all COVID-19 reinfection cases due to testing occurring outside the Veterans Affairs system, including at-home testing. The impact of vaccination status and reinfection on cancer risk could not be fully assessed, as the initial study cohort was grouped prior to vaccine availability.
DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: COVID-19 infection is associated with a 25% reduction in cancer risk over 3 years among veterans who survived the initial infection. This protective effect was observed across sexes and racial groups, with stronger benefits seen in older patients and those with mild disease.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing Veterans who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, to those who tested negative.
Analysis included 499,396 veterans, with 88,590 (17.2%) COVID-19 positive and 427,566 (82.8%) COVID-19 negative patients, with mean (SD) ages of 57.9 (16.4) and 59.5 (15.8) years, respectively.
Investigators utilized Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine the hazard ratio of new cancer diagnosis within a three-year follow-up period.
Patient characteristics included age, race, ethnicity, sex, BMI, smoking status, and various comorbidities as covariates in the analysis.
TAKEAWAY:
For patients surviving ≥ 30 days after COVID-19 testing, infection was associated with a 25% reduction in cancer hazard (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).
The reduction in cancer risk was similar across sexes and races, with the exception of Asians, and showed greater decreases with advancing age above 45 years.
Patients with mild COVID-19 showed the strongest reduction in cancer risk (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70-0.74), while those with moderate COVID-19 showed an 11% reduction (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93), and severe COVID-19 showed no significant reduction in cancer risk.
IN PRACTICE: "Regarding age, the incidence of cancer appeared to decrease with each decade of life in the COVID-19 group compared to that in the non-exposed group,” the authors noted. “This is surprising, given that cancer diagnoses typically increase with age.”
SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the Miami Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center and was published online on August 25 in PLoS One.
LIMITATIONS: The findings of this retrospective and observational study should be interpreted with caution. Results may not be generalizable beyond the predominantly male, older veteran population. The 3-year follow-up period may be insufficient to fully understand long-term cancer incidence patterns. Researchers could not capture all COVID-19 reinfection cases due to testing occurring outside the Veterans Affairs system, including at-home testing. The impact of vaccination status and reinfection on cancer risk could not be fully assessed, as the initial study cohort was grouped prior to vaccine availability.
DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: COVID-19 infection is associated with a 25% reduction in cancer risk over 3 years among veterans who survived the initial infection. This protective effect was observed across sexes and racial groups, with stronger benefits seen in older patients and those with mild disease.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing Veterans who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, to those who tested negative.
Analysis included 499,396 veterans, with 88,590 (17.2%) COVID-19 positive and 427,566 (82.8%) COVID-19 negative patients, with mean (SD) ages of 57.9 (16.4) and 59.5 (15.8) years, respectively.
Investigators utilized Cox proportional hazard regression models to determine the hazard ratio of new cancer diagnosis within a three-year follow-up period.
Patient characteristics included age, race, ethnicity, sex, BMI, smoking status, and various comorbidities as covariates in the analysis.
TAKEAWAY:
For patients surviving ≥ 30 days after COVID-19 testing, infection was associated with a 25% reduction in cancer hazard (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.73-0.77).
The reduction in cancer risk was similar across sexes and races, with the exception of Asians, and showed greater decreases with advancing age above 45 years.
Patients with mild COVID-19 showed the strongest reduction in cancer risk (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70-0.74), while those with moderate COVID-19 showed an 11% reduction (adjusted HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93), and severe COVID-19 showed no significant reduction in cancer risk.
IN PRACTICE: "Regarding age, the incidence of cancer appeared to decrease with each decade of life in the COVID-19 group compared to that in the non-exposed group,” the authors noted. “This is surprising, given that cancer diagnoses typically increase with age.”
SOURCE: The study was led by researchers at the Miami Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center and was published online on August 25 in PLoS One.
LIMITATIONS: The findings of this retrospective and observational study should be interpreted with caution. Results may not be generalizable beyond the predominantly male, older veteran population. The 3-year follow-up period may be insufficient to fully understand long-term cancer incidence patterns. Researchers could not capture all COVID-19 reinfection cases due to testing occurring outside the Veterans Affairs system, including at-home testing. The impact of vaccination status and reinfection on cancer risk could not be fully assessed, as the initial study cohort was grouped prior to vaccine availability.
DISCLOSURES: The authors report no financial support was received for this study and declare no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
VA Revises Policy For Male Breast Cancer
Male veterans with breast cancer may have a more difficult time receiving appropriate health care due to a recently revised US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy that requires each individual to prove the disease’s connection to their service to qualify for coverage.
According to a VA memo obtained by ProPublica, the change is based on a Jan. 1 presidential order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” VA Press Secretary Pete Kasperowicz told ProPublica that the policy was changed because the previous policy “falsely classified male breasts as reproductive organs.”
In 2024, the VA added male breast cancer (along with urethral cancer and cancer of the paraurethral glands) to its list of presumed service-connected disabilities due to military environmental exposure, such as toxic burn pits. Male breast cancer was added to the category of “reproductive cancer of any type” after experts pointed to the similarity of male and female breast cancers.
Establishing a connection between a variety of cancers and military service has been a years-long fight only resolved recently in the form of the 2022 PACT Act. The VA lists > 20 medical conditions as “presumptive” for service connection, with some caveats, such as area of service. The act reduced the burden of proof needed: The terms “presumptive conditions” and “presumptive-exposure locations” mean veterans only have to provide their military records to show they were in an exposure location to have their care for certain conditions covered.
Supporters of the PACT Act say the policy change could make it harder for veterans to receive timely care, a serious issue for men with breast cancer who have been “severely underrepresented” in clinical studies and many studies specifically exclude males. The American Cancer Society estimates about 2800 men have been or will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2025. Less than 1% of breast cancers in the US occur in men, but breast cancer is notably higher among veterans: 11% of 3304 veterans, according to a 2023 study.
Breast cancer is more aggressive in men—they’re more often diagnosed at Stage IV and tend to be older—and survival rates have been lower than in women. In a 2019 study of 16,025 male and 1,800,708 female patients with breast cancer, men had 19% higher overall mortality.
Treatment for male breast cancer has lagged. A 2021 study found men were less likely than women to receive radiation therapy. However, that’s changing. Since that study, however, the American Cancer Society claims treatments and survival rates have improved. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, 5-year survival rates are 97% for localized, 86% for regional, and 31% for distant; 84% for all stages combined.
Screening and treatment have focused on women. But the VA Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence (BGSoE) provides cancer care for all veterans diagnosed with breast malignancies. Male veterans with breast cancer do face additional challenges in addressing a cancer that is most often associated with females. “I must admit, it was awkward every time I went [to the Women’s Health Center for postmastectomy follow-ups]” William K. Lewis, described in his patient perspective on male breast cancer treatment in the VA.
Though the policy has changed, Kasperowicz told ProPublica that veterans who previously qualified for coverage can keep it: “The department grants disability benefits compensation claims for male Veterans with breast cancer on an individual basis and will continue to do so. VA encourages any male Veterans with breast cancer who feel their health may have been impacted by their military service to submit a disability compensation claim.”
Male veterans with breast cancer may have a more difficult time receiving appropriate health care due to a recently revised US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy that requires each individual to prove the disease’s connection to their service to qualify for coverage.
According to a VA memo obtained by ProPublica, the change is based on a Jan. 1 presidential order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” VA Press Secretary Pete Kasperowicz told ProPublica that the policy was changed because the previous policy “falsely classified male breasts as reproductive organs.”
In 2024, the VA added male breast cancer (along with urethral cancer and cancer of the paraurethral glands) to its list of presumed service-connected disabilities due to military environmental exposure, such as toxic burn pits. Male breast cancer was added to the category of “reproductive cancer of any type” after experts pointed to the similarity of male and female breast cancers.
Establishing a connection between a variety of cancers and military service has been a years-long fight only resolved recently in the form of the 2022 PACT Act. The VA lists > 20 medical conditions as “presumptive” for service connection, with some caveats, such as area of service. The act reduced the burden of proof needed: The terms “presumptive conditions” and “presumptive-exposure locations” mean veterans only have to provide their military records to show they were in an exposure location to have their care for certain conditions covered.
Supporters of the PACT Act say the policy change could make it harder for veterans to receive timely care, a serious issue for men with breast cancer who have been “severely underrepresented” in clinical studies and many studies specifically exclude males. The American Cancer Society estimates about 2800 men have been or will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2025. Less than 1% of breast cancers in the US occur in men, but breast cancer is notably higher among veterans: 11% of 3304 veterans, according to a 2023 study.
Breast cancer is more aggressive in men—they’re more often diagnosed at Stage IV and tend to be older—and survival rates have been lower than in women. In a 2019 study of 16,025 male and 1,800,708 female patients with breast cancer, men had 19% higher overall mortality.
Treatment for male breast cancer has lagged. A 2021 study found men were less likely than women to receive radiation therapy. However, that’s changing. Since that study, however, the American Cancer Society claims treatments and survival rates have improved. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, 5-year survival rates are 97% for localized, 86% for regional, and 31% for distant; 84% for all stages combined.
Screening and treatment have focused on women. But the VA Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence (BGSoE) provides cancer care for all veterans diagnosed with breast malignancies. Male veterans with breast cancer do face additional challenges in addressing a cancer that is most often associated with females. “I must admit, it was awkward every time I went [to the Women’s Health Center for postmastectomy follow-ups]” William K. Lewis, described in his patient perspective on male breast cancer treatment in the VA.
Though the policy has changed, Kasperowicz told ProPublica that veterans who previously qualified for coverage can keep it: “The department grants disability benefits compensation claims for male Veterans with breast cancer on an individual basis and will continue to do so. VA encourages any male Veterans with breast cancer who feel their health may have been impacted by their military service to submit a disability compensation claim.”
Male veterans with breast cancer may have a more difficult time receiving appropriate health care due to a recently revised US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy that requires each individual to prove the disease’s connection to their service to qualify for coverage.
According to a VA memo obtained by ProPublica, the change is based on a Jan. 1 presidential order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” VA Press Secretary Pete Kasperowicz told ProPublica that the policy was changed because the previous policy “falsely classified male breasts as reproductive organs.”
In 2024, the VA added male breast cancer (along with urethral cancer and cancer of the paraurethral glands) to its list of presumed service-connected disabilities due to military environmental exposure, such as toxic burn pits. Male breast cancer was added to the category of “reproductive cancer of any type” after experts pointed to the similarity of male and female breast cancers.
Establishing a connection between a variety of cancers and military service has been a years-long fight only resolved recently in the form of the 2022 PACT Act. The VA lists > 20 medical conditions as “presumptive” for service connection, with some caveats, such as area of service. The act reduced the burden of proof needed: The terms “presumptive conditions” and “presumptive-exposure locations” mean veterans only have to provide their military records to show they were in an exposure location to have their care for certain conditions covered.
Supporters of the PACT Act say the policy change could make it harder for veterans to receive timely care, a serious issue for men with breast cancer who have been “severely underrepresented” in clinical studies and many studies specifically exclude males. The American Cancer Society estimates about 2800 men have been or will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in 2025. Less than 1% of breast cancers in the US occur in men, but breast cancer is notably higher among veterans: 11% of 3304 veterans, according to a 2023 study.
Breast cancer is more aggressive in men—they’re more often diagnosed at Stage IV and tend to be older—and survival rates have been lower than in women. In a 2019 study of 16,025 male and 1,800,708 female patients with breast cancer, men had 19% higher overall mortality.
Treatment for male breast cancer has lagged. A 2021 study found men were less likely than women to receive radiation therapy. However, that’s changing. Since that study, however, the American Cancer Society claims treatments and survival rates have improved. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, 5-year survival rates are 97% for localized, 86% for regional, and 31% for distant; 84% for all stages combined.
Screening and treatment have focused on women. But the VA Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence (BGSoE) provides cancer care for all veterans diagnosed with breast malignancies. Male veterans with breast cancer do face additional challenges in addressing a cancer that is most often associated with females. “I must admit, it was awkward every time I went [to the Women’s Health Center for postmastectomy follow-ups]” William K. Lewis, described in his patient perspective on male breast cancer treatment in the VA.
Though the policy has changed, Kasperowicz told ProPublica that veterans who previously qualified for coverage can keep it: “The department grants disability benefits compensation claims for male Veterans with breast cancer on an individual basis and will continue to do so. VA encourages any male Veterans with breast cancer who feel their health may have been impacted by their military service to submit a disability compensation claim.”
GI Endoscopists Want More Training in Moderate Sedation
PHOENIX — , and a majority would be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, especially after in-person or online training, according to results from an ongoing survey presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
The dwindling supply of anesthesiology professionals in the US puts pressure on endoscopists, Dayna S. Early, MD, professor of medicine in the Gastroenterology Division at the Washington University, director of endoscopy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, both in St. Louis, and chair of an ACG task force on anesthesia issues, told meeting attendees. However, preliminary results from the survey found that only about 4% of respondents said they used solely endoscopist-directed moderate sedation.
This could be because — as the survey also showed — GI fellows are not receiving adequate training in moderate sedation, which requires no interventions to maintain a patient airway, she reported. About 80% of program directors and 75% of senior fellows responding to the survey said they received training in moderate/conscious sedation during their fellowship.
These numbers are not impressive, said Early.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires gastroenterology fellows to demonstrate competence in conscious sedation, along with other core skills, she explained. “What if I substituted training in mucosal biopsy or training in colonoscopy with polypectomy, which are other core requirements? I think you’d be shocked.”
The survey was small, with only 92 of 250 program directors and 33 of 655 fellows responding, but Early said the task force continues to collect responses.
Is Existing Training Enough?
Ten percent of fellows who replied to the survey did not participate in any moderate sedation procedures during training. And about a third of program directors said fellows participated in less than 100 such procedures.
“We really don’t know if that’s enough, in this era of competency-based assessment, which really values competency measures over numbers,” said Early.
Of the fellows who did receive training, 37% received hands-on training, a quarter received didactic lecture training, 11% used online modules, and 17% received a combination of the above training methods.
Just two thirds of program directors said they or their fellows were competent in moderate sedation, while close to 70% of fellows judged themselves competent.
While the majority of program directors (80%) knew that training in conscious sedation was a core ACGME requirement, only around a quarter of fellows were aware of the requirement.
Most gastroenterologists rely on anesthesiologists or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver moderate or deep sedation, said Early, citing results from a separate survey sent to practicing clinicians.
Ongoing Shortages of CRNAs and Anesthesiologists
Shortages of anesthesiologists and CRNAs will continue to limit endoscopy procedure volume, especially in rural areas of the US, said Early.
The nation is expected to be short by 450,000 CRNAs this year and by 6300 anesthesiologists within a decade, she reported. Anesthesia providers are burned out or nearing retirement age, and there are not enough residency programs to produce new anesthesiologists at the rate needed to meet the demand, she said.
Gastroenterologists have become reliant on anesthesia providers, but adding a clinician is more expensive and “doesn’t appear to resolve and improve safety as compared with endoscopist-directed sedation for routine procedures,” said Early.
When practicing clinicians were asked if they’d be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, 20% said yes, while 35% said no. But 16% said they would want to provide moderate sedation after completing in-person training, and 19% said they would after completing online training.
It may take time for gastroenterologists to get appropriate training and reduce reliance on anesthesia providers, Early said. But she said it may be increasingly possible in states allowing endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered propofol, and with medications such as remimazolam, a rapid-acting benzodiazepine that has shown similar efficacy and lower adverse event rates than propofol.
There will have to be a really deliberate step in order to take back control of endoscopic sedation from anesthesia and start performing more modest sedation, she said.
Early reported having no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — , and a majority would be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, especially after in-person or online training, according to results from an ongoing survey presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
The dwindling supply of anesthesiology professionals in the US puts pressure on endoscopists, Dayna S. Early, MD, professor of medicine in the Gastroenterology Division at the Washington University, director of endoscopy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, both in St. Louis, and chair of an ACG task force on anesthesia issues, told meeting attendees. However, preliminary results from the survey found that only about 4% of respondents said they used solely endoscopist-directed moderate sedation.
This could be because — as the survey also showed — GI fellows are not receiving adequate training in moderate sedation, which requires no interventions to maintain a patient airway, she reported. About 80% of program directors and 75% of senior fellows responding to the survey said they received training in moderate/conscious sedation during their fellowship.
These numbers are not impressive, said Early.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires gastroenterology fellows to demonstrate competence in conscious sedation, along with other core skills, she explained. “What if I substituted training in mucosal biopsy or training in colonoscopy with polypectomy, which are other core requirements? I think you’d be shocked.”
The survey was small, with only 92 of 250 program directors and 33 of 655 fellows responding, but Early said the task force continues to collect responses.
Is Existing Training Enough?
Ten percent of fellows who replied to the survey did not participate in any moderate sedation procedures during training. And about a third of program directors said fellows participated in less than 100 such procedures.
“We really don’t know if that’s enough, in this era of competency-based assessment, which really values competency measures over numbers,” said Early.
Of the fellows who did receive training, 37% received hands-on training, a quarter received didactic lecture training, 11% used online modules, and 17% received a combination of the above training methods.
Just two thirds of program directors said they or their fellows were competent in moderate sedation, while close to 70% of fellows judged themselves competent.
While the majority of program directors (80%) knew that training in conscious sedation was a core ACGME requirement, only around a quarter of fellows were aware of the requirement.
Most gastroenterologists rely on anesthesiologists or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver moderate or deep sedation, said Early, citing results from a separate survey sent to practicing clinicians.
Ongoing Shortages of CRNAs and Anesthesiologists
Shortages of anesthesiologists and CRNAs will continue to limit endoscopy procedure volume, especially in rural areas of the US, said Early.
The nation is expected to be short by 450,000 CRNAs this year and by 6300 anesthesiologists within a decade, she reported. Anesthesia providers are burned out or nearing retirement age, and there are not enough residency programs to produce new anesthesiologists at the rate needed to meet the demand, she said.
Gastroenterologists have become reliant on anesthesia providers, but adding a clinician is more expensive and “doesn’t appear to resolve and improve safety as compared with endoscopist-directed sedation for routine procedures,” said Early.
When practicing clinicians were asked if they’d be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, 20% said yes, while 35% said no. But 16% said they would want to provide moderate sedation after completing in-person training, and 19% said they would after completing online training.
It may take time for gastroenterologists to get appropriate training and reduce reliance on anesthesia providers, Early said. But she said it may be increasingly possible in states allowing endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered propofol, and with medications such as remimazolam, a rapid-acting benzodiazepine that has shown similar efficacy and lower adverse event rates than propofol.
There will have to be a really deliberate step in order to take back control of endoscopic sedation from anesthesia and start performing more modest sedation, she said.
Early reported having no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — , and a majority would be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, especially after in-person or online training, according to results from an ongoing survey presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
The dwindling supply of anesthesiology professionals in the US puts pressure on endoscopists, Dayna S. Early, MD, professor of medicine in the Gastroenterology Division at the Washington University, director of endoscopy at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, both in St. Louis, and chair of an ACG task force on anesthesia issues, told meeting attendees. However, preliminary results from the survey found that only about 4% of respondents said they used solely endoscopist-directed moderate sedation.
This could be because — as the survey also showed — GI fellows are not receiving adequate training in moderate sedation, which requires no interventions to maintain a patient airway, she reported. About 80% of program directors and 75% of senior fellows responding to the survey said they received training in moderate/conscious sedation during their fellowship.
These numbers are not impressive, said Early.
The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires gastroenterology fellows to demonstrate competence in conscious sedation, along with other core skills, she explained. “What if I substituted training in mucosal biopsy or training in colonoscopy with polypectomy, which are other core requirements? I think you’d be shocked.”
The survey was small, with only 92 of 250 program directors and 33 of 655 fellows responding, but Early said the task force continues to collect responses.
Is Existing Training Enough?
Ten percent of fellows who replied to the survey did not participate in any moderate sedation procedures during training. And about a third of program directors said fellows participated in less than 100 such procedures.
“We really don’t know if that’s enough, in this era of competency-based assessment, which really values competency measures over numbers,” said Early.
Of the fellows who did receive training, 37% received hands-on training, a quarter received didactic lecture training, 11% used online modules, and 17% received a combination of the above training methods.
Just two thirds of program directors said they or their fellows were competent in moderate sedation, while close to 70% of fellows judged themselves competent.
While the majority of program directors (80%) knew that training in conscious sedation was a core ACGME requirement, only around a quarter of fellows were aware of the requirement.
Most gastroenterologists rely on anesthesiologists or certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) to deliver moderate or deep sedation, said Early, citing results from a separate survey sent to practicing clinicians.
Ongoing Shortages of CRNAs and Anesthesiologists
Shortages of anesthesiologists and CRNAs will continue to limit endoscopy procedure volume, especially in rural areas of the US, said Early.
The nation is expected to be short by 450,000 CRNAs this year and by 6300 anesthesiologists within a decade, she reported. Anesthesia providers are burned out or nearing retirement age, and there are not enough residency programs to produce new anesthesiologists at the rate needed to meet the demand, she said.
Gastroenterologists have become reliant on anesthesia providers, but adding a clinician is more expensive and “doesn’t appear to resolve and improve safety as compared with endoscopist-directed sedation for routine procedures,” said Early.
When practicing clinicians were asked if they’d be interested in providing physician-directed propofol sedation, 20% said yes, while 35% said no. But 16% said they would want to provide moderate sedation after completing in-person training, and 19% said they would after completing online training.
It may take time for gastroenterologists to get appropriate training and reduce reliance on anesthesia providers, Early said. But she said it may be increasingly possible in states allowing endoscopist-directed, nurse-administered propofol, and with medications such as remimazolam, a rapid-acting benzodiazepine that has shown similar efficacy and lower adverse event rates than propofol.
There will have to be a really deliberate step in order to take back control of endoscopic sedation from anesthesia and start performing more modest sedation, she said.
Early reported having no conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2025
FDA OKs Linzess for IBS With Constipation in Kids
, making it the first approved treatment for pediatric IBS-C.
The recommended dosage in pediatric patients is 145 mcg/d oral linaclotide.
Linaclotide is already approved in the US for IBS-C in adults, as well as functional constipation in children aged 6 years or older and chronic idiopathic constipation in adults.
IBS-C is common in children and adolescents. Symptoms include infrequent bowel movements with hard stools that can be difficult or painful to pass.
There is no known underlying organic cause and there are typically multiple contributing factors, the FDA said in a statement announcing the approval.
The efficacy of linaclotide to treat IBS-C in children aged 7 years or older was supported by extrapolation of efficacy from studies in adults and a 12-week double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in pediatric patients aged 7-17 years who met modified Rome III criteria for child/adolescent IBS-C, the FDA noted.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 30% reduction in abdominal pain and an increase of at least two naturally occurring bowel movements per week from baseline for at least 6 weeks of the 12-week treatment period.
The efficacy results in children with IBS-C were consistent with results seen in adults with IBS-C, with no new safety signals.
The most common side effect with linaclotide is diarrhea. If severe diarrhea occurs, linaclotide should be discontinued and rehydration started.
Linaclotide is contraindicated in children younger than 2 years. Patients with known or suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction should not take linaclotide.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, making it the first approved treatment for pediatric IBS-C.
The recommended dosage in pediatric patients is 145 mcg/d oral linaclotide.
Linaclotide is already approved in the US for IBS-C in adults, as well as functional constipation in children aged 6 years or older and chronic idiopathic constipation in adults.
IBS-C is common in children and adolescents. Symptoms include infrequent bowel movements with hard stools that can be difficult or painful to pass.
There is no known underlying organic cause and there are typically multiple contributing factors, the FDA said in a statement announcing the approval.
The efficacy of linaclotide to treat IBS-C in children aged 7 years or older was supported by extrapolation of efficacy from studies in adults and a 12-week double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in pediatric patients aged 7-17 years who met modified Rome III criteria for child/adolescent IBS-C, the FDA noted.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 30% reduction in abdominal pain and an increase of at least two naturally occurring bowel movements per week from baseline for at least 6 weeks of the 12-week treatment period.
The efficacy results in children with IBS-C were consistent with results seen in adults with IBS-C, with no new safety signals.
The most common side effect with linaclotide is diarrhea. If severe diarrhea occurs, linaclotide should be discontinued and rehydration started.
Linaclotide is contraindicated in children younger than 2 years. Patients with known or suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction should not take linaclotide.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, making it the first approved treatment for pediatric IBS-C.
The recommended dosage in pediatric patients is 145 mcg/d oral linaclotide.
Linaclotide is already approved in the US for IBS-C in adults, as well as functional constipation in children aged 6 years or older and chronic idiopathic constipation in adults.
IBS-C is common in children and adolescents. Symptoms include infrequent bowel movements with hard stools that can be difficult or painful to pass.
There is no known underlying organic cause and there are typically multiple contributing factors, the FDA said in a statement announcing the approval.
The efficacy of linaclotide to treat IBS-C in children aged 7 years or older was supported by extrapolation of efficacy from studies in adults and a 12-week double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trial in pediatric patients aged 7-17 years who met modified Rome III criteria for child/adolescent IBS-C, the FDA noted.
The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 30% reduction in abdominal pain and an increase of at least two naturally occurring bowel movements per week from baseline for at least 6 weeks of the 12-week treatment period.
The efficacy results in children with IBS-C were consistent with results seen in adults with IBS-C, with no new safety signals.
The most common side effect with linaclotide is diarrhea. If severe diarrhea occurs, linaclotide should be discontinued and rehydration started.
Linaclotide is contraindicated in children younger than 2 years. Patients with known or suspected mechanical gastrointestinal obstruction should not take linaclotide.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chance to Diagnose Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the ED Commonly Missed
PHOENIX — The opportunity to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when patients present to the emergency department (ED) with the classic symptom of esophageal food impaction (EFI) is commonly missed, with necessary biopsies provided at strikingly low rates, despite guideline recommendations, new research showed.
“This is the first study to assess the rate of biopsies at time of esophageal food impaction in a large, real-world dataset of community practices,” the authors explained in research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
The findings underscore that “.”
Research shows patients with EoE, a chronic and progressive type 2 inflammatory disease, have an average delay of 4 years before being diagnosed, with a delay of up to 10 years in about a third of cases. With those delays comes the likelihood of disease progression.
The latest guidelines from the ACG indicate that for diagnosis, “from a practical standpoint,” the preferred approach is to obtain at least two to four biopsies from at least two distinct esophageal areas, while targeting areas of visual inflammation.
However, prior evidence suggests that the biopsies are commonly not performed when patients present with the symptoms of EFI.
To further investigate the management of EFI during and after ED visits in a real-world setting, first author Walker D. Redd, MD, Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2566 patients in a multistate gastrointestinal practice group at 143 care centers in seven US states.
The patients were treated for esophageal food or foreign body removal between 2018 and 2024.
Among them, 1434 patients received evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with 754 having no EGD and 378 receiving EGD for non-EFI.
The patients had a mean age of 63, with nearly 60% being older than 60 years, and 44.9% were women.
At the index EGD, only 19% had records of having esophageal biopsies. Among them, nearly half, 47%, were determined to have biopsy-confirmed EoE.
Of those who did not receive biopsies, only 7% had records of having received a follow-up EGD with an esophageal biopsy within 1 year, with 40% of those having EoE confirmed from a biopsy.
Among the remaining 93% of patients who had no record of such follow-up care within 1 year, 41% were lost to follow-up.
“We found that only about one fifth of patients had esophageal biopsies collected at the time of esophageal food impaction, which is similar to previous reports,” Redd said.
Overall, “esophageal biopsy rates at the time of esophageal food impaction remain low, and follow-up EGD with biopsy rates are also very low.”
Responding to a comment from the audience, Redd agreed that a limitation of the study was the scenario of patients from out of town being treated at an ED and then going back home, where their follow-up status may not be known.
Nevertheless, awareness of the low rates “represent an important opportunity to reduce the diagnostic delay and improve quality of care in EoE,” he said.
Commenting on the study, Danny Issa, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, agreed that the low rates of follow-up were troubling.
“Only 1 in 10 is a very low rate of follow-up endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
“These results show we need to encourage quality improvement initiatives to make sure those patients are followed up,” he said.
Furthermore, “additional studies are needed to better understand the barriers behind the lack of follow-up, which were not addressed fully in the study.”
Co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Valley Medical Group, in Paramus, New Jersey, added that “the point that needs to be made is that these patients need biopsies so you can diagnose and subsequently treat them.”
Redd reported having a consulting relationship with Sanofi. Issa reported having relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — The opportunity to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when patients present to the emergency department (ED) with the classic symptom of esophageal food impaction (EFI) is commonly missed, with necessary biopsies provided at strikingly low rates, despite guideline recommendations, new research showed.
“This is the first study to assess the rate of biopsies at time of esophageal food impaction in a large, real-world dataset of community practices,” the authors explained in research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
The findings underscore that “.”
Research shows patients with EoE, a chronic and progressive type 2 inflammatory disease, have an average delay of 4 years before being diagnosed, with a delay of up to 10 years in about a third of cases. With those delays comes the likelihood of disease progression.
The latest guidelines from the ACG indicate that for diagnosis, “from a practical standpoint,” the preferred approach is to obtain at least two to four biopsies from at least two distinct esophageal areas, while targeting areas of visual inflammation.
However, prior evidence suggests that the biopsies are commonly not performed when patients present with the symptoms of EFI.
To further investigate the management of EFI during and after ED visits in a real-world setting, first author Walker D. Redd, MD, Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2566 patients in a multistate gastrointestinal practice group at 143 care centers in seven US states.
The patients were treated for esophageal food or foreign body removal between 2018 and 2024.
Among them, 1434 patients received evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with 754 having no EGD and 378 receiving EGD for non-EFI.
The patients had a mean age of 63, with nearly 60% being older than 60 years, and 44.9% were women.
At the index EGD, only 19% had records of having esophageal biopsies. Among them, nearly half, 47%, were determined to have biopsy-confirmed EoE.
Of those who did not receive biopsies, only 7% had records of having received a follow-up EGD with an esophageal biopsy within 1 year, with 40% of those having EoE confirmed from a biopsy.
Among the remaining 93% of patients who had no record of such follow-up care within 1 year, 41% were lost to follow-up.
“We found that only about one fifth of patients had esophageal biopsies collected at the time of esophageal food impaction, which is similar to previous reports,” Redd said.
Overall, “esophageal biopsy rates at the time of esophageal food impaction remain low, and follow-up EGD with biopsy rates are also very low.”
Responding to a comment from the audience, Redd agreed that a limitation of the study was the scenario of patients from out of town being treated at an ED and then going back home, where their follow-up status may not be known.
Nevertheless, awareness of the low rates “represent an important opportunity to reduce the diagnostic delay and improve quality of care in EoE,” he said.
Commenting on the study, Danny Issa, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, agreed that the low rates of follow-up were troubling.
“Only 1 in 10 is a very low rate of follow-up endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
“These results show we need to encourage quality improvement initiatives to make sure those patients are followed up,” he said.
Furthermore, “additional studies are needed to better understand the barriers behind the lack of follow-up, which were not addressed fully in the study.”
Co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Valley Medical Group, in Paramus, New Jersey, added that “the point that needs to be made is that these patients need biopsies so you can diagnose and subsequently treat them.”
Redd reported having a consulting relationship with Sanofi. Issa reported having relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — The opportunity to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when patients present to the emergency department (ED) with the classic symptom of esophageal food impaction (EFI) is commonly missed, with necessary biopsies provided at strikingly low rates, despite guideline recommendations, new research showed.
“This is the first study to assess the rate of biopsies at time of esophageal food impaction in a large, real-world dataset of community practices,” the authors explained in research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
The findings underscore that “.”
Research shows patients with EoE, a chronic and progressive type 2 inflammatory disease, have an average delay of 4 years before being diagnosed, with a delay of up to 10 years in about a third of cases. With those delays comes the likelihood of disease progression.
The latest guidelines from the ACG indicate that for diagnosis, “from a practical standpoint,” the preferred approach is to obtain at least two to four biopsies from at least two distinct esophageal areas, while targeting areas of visual inflammation.
However, prior evidence suggests that the biopsies are commonly not performed when patients present with the symptoms of EFI.
To further investigate the management of EFI during and after ED visits in a real-world setting, first author Walker D. Redd, MD, Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2566 patients in a multistate gastrointestinal practice group at 143 care centers in seven US states.
The patients were treated for esophageal food or foreign body removal between 2018 and 2024.
Among them, 1434 patients received evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with 754 having no EGD and 378 receiving EGD for non-EFI.
The patients had a mean age of 63, with nearly 60% being older than 60 years, and 44.9% were women.
At the index EGD, only 19% had records of having esophageal biopsies. Among them, nearly half, 47%, were determined to have biopsy-confirmed EoE.
Of those who did not receive biopsies, only 7% had records of having received a follow-up EGD with an esophageal biopsy within 1 year, with 40% of those having EoE confirmed from a biopsy.
Among the remaining 93% of patients who had no record of such follow-up care within 1 year, 41% were lost to follow-up.
“We found that only about one fifth of patients had esophageal biopsies collected at the time of esophageal food impaction, which is similar to previous reports,” Redd said.
Overall, “esophageal biopsy rates at the time of esophageal food impaction remain low, and follow-up EGD with biopsy rates are also very low.”
Responding to a comment from the audience, Redd agreed that a limitation of the study was the scenario of patients from out of town being treated at an ED and then going back home, where their follow-up status may not be known.
Nevertheless, awareness of the low rates “represent an important opportunity to reduce the diagnostic delay and improve quality of care in EoE,” he said.
Commenting on the study, Danny Issa, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, agreed that the low rates of follow-up were troubling.
“Only 1 in 10 is a very low rate of follow-up endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
“These results show we need to encourage quality improvement initiatives to make sure those patients are followed up,” he said.
Furthermore, “additional studies are needed to better understand the barriers behind the lack of follow-up, which were not addressed fully in the study.”
Co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Valley Medical Group, in Paramus, New Jersey, added that “the point that needs to be made is that these patients need biopsies so you can diagnose and subsequently treat them.”
Redd reported having a consulting relationship with Sanofi. Issa reported having relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2025
Cholecystectomy Delay Linked to Substantially Increased Complication Risk
, regardless of the receipt of sphincterotomy or stenting, new research showed.
“These findings suggest an opportunity for systemic interventions, including prioritization algorithms and better perioperative coordination, to address preventable delays,” reported the authors in the study, presented at American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Choledocholithiasis can occur in up to 20% of symptomatic gallstone cases, and while guidelines recommend having a cholecystectomy concurrently with ERCP, data on the best timing is inconsistent and delays in gall bladder removal are consequently common.
One large study, for instance, the PONCHO trial conducted at 23 hospitals in Netherlands, showed complications to be significantly lower with same-admission vs interval cholecystectomy (4.7% vs 16.9%; P = .02).
Meanwhile, other research has suggested that delayed cholecystectomy is a preferred approach, allowing for removal when there is less inflammation.
Real world data meanwhile shows, despite the guidelines, the procedures are performed at the same time as ERCP only in about 41% of cases, first author Jessica El Halabi, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said.
To further investigate outcomes associated with those delays, El Halabi and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 507 patients admitted with choledocholithiasis at the hospital and community hospitals between 2005 and 2023 who had 12 months or more follow-up.
The patients had a mean age of 59 years and 59.4% were women.
Of the patients, 265 (52.3%) underwent early cholecystectomy, defined as surgery during the index admission, while 242 (47.7%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy, defined as postdischarge cholecystectomy or if cholecystectomy was not performed.
Overall, biliary complications occurred in as many as 23% of those who had delayed cholecystectomy compared with just 0.8% among those having the early cholecystectomy (P < .001).
Of patients who had delayed cholecystectomy and developed complications, 15.5% did so within 3 months, 6.5% by 6 months, and 1% by 12 months.
Among those who had ERCP with sphincterotomy, there were no significant differences in rates of biliary complications vs those who did not have sphincterotomy (26% vs 21%; P = .74), while stenting also did not reduce the risk (25% vs 27%; P = .81).
The leading reasons for delayed cholecystectomy included patients having a high surgical risk (27.3%), concurrent biliary pathology (19.2%), and physician preference (14%).
The findings underscore that “concurrent cholecystectomy is associated with the lowest risk of biliary complications,” El Halabi said.
“Delayed cholecystectomy is associated with an approximately 23% incidence of biliary complications with 1 year of initial admission, with the highest incidence occurring within 3 months,” she added. “Neither sphincterotomy nor stenting during ERCP mitigates this risk.”
“Early cholecystectomy during the index admission remains the most reliable strategy to reduce recurrent events.”
Findings Underscore Importance of Timing
Commenting on the study, Luis F. Lara, MD, division chief of digestive diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who co-moderated the session, agreed that evidence soundly supports early cholecystectomy.
“We also did a large study looking at this and there’s no doubt that doing it during the index admission has a tremendous effect on long-term outcomes,” Lara told GI & Hepatology News.
Lara noted that “part of it is people don’t show up again until they get sick again, so we don’t want to lose that opportunity the first time, during the index admission,” he said.
Lara’s previous studies have specifically documented how early cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis improves outcomes of hospitalization for cirrhosis and factors associated with early unplanned readmissions following same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis.
Akwi W. Asombang, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, agreed that the findings are important.
“We know that if a cholecystectomy is not performed in the same admission as ERCP, the stones in the gallbladder remain and may migrate out into the bile duct, resulting in further complications as described in the study,” Asombang, also a session co-moderator, told GI & Hepatology News.
She noted that the practice can vary between institutions based on factors including the availability of physicians to perform the cholecystectomy.
Potential complications in delaying the procedure can range from inflammation and pancreatitis to obstruction of the bile duct, “which then can result in cholangitis and eventually sepsis or even death,” Asombang cautioned.
“So the timing of the procedure with ERCP is definitely significant,” she said.
El Halabi and Asombang had no disclosures to report. Lara reported a relationship with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, regardless of the receipt of sphincterotomy or stenting, new research showed.
“These findings suggest an opportunity for systemic interventions, including prioritization algorithms and better perioperative coordination, to address preventable delays,” reported the authors in the study, presented at American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Choledocholithiasis can occur in up to 20% of symptomatic gallstone cases, and while guidelines recommend having a cholecystectomy concurrently with ERCP, data on the best timing is inconsistent and delays in gall bladder removal are consequently common.
One large study, for instance, the PONCHO trial conducted at 23 hospitals in Netherlands, showed complications to be significantly lower with same-admission vs interval cholecystectomy (4.7% vs 16.9%; P = .02).
Meanwhile, other research has suggested that delayed cholecystectomy is a preferred approach, allowing for removal when there is less inflammation.
Real world data meanwhile shows, despite the guidelines, the procedures are performed at the same time as ERCP only in about 41% of cases, first author Jessica El Halabi, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said.
To further investigate outcomes associated with those delays, El Halabi and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 507 patients admitted with choledocholithiasis at the hospital and community hospitals between 2005 and 2023 who had 12 months or more follow-up.
The patients had a mean age of 59 years and 59.4% were women.
Of the patients, 265 (52.3%) underwent early cholecystectomy, defined as surgery during the index admission, while 242 (47.7%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy, defined as postdischarge cholecystectomy or if cholecystectomy was not performed.
Overall, biliary complications occurred in as many as 23% of those who had delayed cholecystectomy compared with just 0.8% among those having the early cholecystectomy (P < .001).
Of patients who had delayed cholecystectomy and developed complications, 15.5% did so within 3 months, 6.5% by 6 months, and 1% by 12 months.
Among those who had ERCP with sphincterotomy, there were no significant differences in rates of biliary complications vs those who did not have sphincterotomy (26% vs 21%; P = .74), while stenting also did not reduce the risk (25% vs 27%; P = .81).
The leading reasons for delayed cholecystectomy included patients having a high surgical risk (27.3%), concurrent biliary pathology (19.2%), and physician preference (14%).
The findings underscore that “concurrent cholecystectomy is associated with the lowest risk of biliary complications,” El Halabi said.
“Delayed cholecystectomy is associated with an approximately 23% incidence of biliary complications with 1 year of initial admission, with the highest incidence occurring within 3 months,” she added. “Neither sphincterotomy nor stenting during ERCP mitigates this risk.”
“Early cholecystectomy during the index admission remains the most reliable strategy to reduce recurrent events.”
Findings Underscore Importance of Timing
Commenting on the study, Luis F. Lara, MD, division chief of digestive diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who co-moderated the session, agreed that evidence soundly supports early cholecystectomy.
“We also did a large study looking at this and there’s no doubt that doing it during the index admission has a tremendous effect on long-term outcomes,” Lara told GI & Hepatology News.
Lara noted that “part of it is people don’t show up again until they get sick again, so we don’t want to lose that opportunity the first time, during the index admission,” he said.
Lara’s previous studies have specifically documented how early cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis improves outcomes of hospitalization for cirrhosis and factors associated with early unplanned readmissions following same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis.
Akwi W. Asombang, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, agreed that the findings are important.
“We know that if a cholecystectomy is not performed in the same admission as ERCP, the stones in the gallbladder remain and may migrate out into the bile duct, resulting in further complications as described in the study,” Asombang, also a session co-moderator, told GI & Hepatology News.
She noted that the practice can vary between institutions based on factors including the availability of physicians to perform the cholecystectomy.
Potential complications in delaying the procedure can range from inflammation and pancreatitis to obstruction of the bile duct, “which then can result in cholangitis and eventually sepsis or even death,” Asombang cautioned.
“So the timing of the procedure with ERCP is definitely significant,” she said.
El Halabi and Asombang had no disclosures to report. Lara reported a relationship with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, regardless of the receipt of sphincterotomy or stenting, new research showed.
“These findings suggest an opportunity for systemic interventions, including prioritization algorithms and better perioperative coordination, to address preventable delays,” reported the authors in the study, presented at American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Choledocholithiasis can occur in up to 20% of symptomatic gallstone cases, and while guidelines recommend having a cholecystectomy concurrently with ERCP, data on the best timing is inconsistent and delays in gall bladder removal are consequently common.
One large study, for instance, the PONCHO trial conducted at 23 hospitals in Netherlands, showed complications to be significantly lower with same-admission vs interval cholecystectomy (4.7% vs 16.9%; P = .02).
Meanwhile, other research has suggested that delayed cholecystectomy is a preferred approach, allowing for removal when there is less inflammation.
Real world data meanwhile shows, despite the guidelines, the procedures are performed at the same time as ERCP only in about 41% of cases, first author Jessica El Halabi, MD, of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said.
To further investigate outcomes associated with those delays, El Halabi and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 507 patients admitted with choledocholithiasis at the hospital and community hospitals between 2005 and 2023 who had 12 months or more follow-up.
The patients had a mean age of 59 years and 59.4% were women.
Of the patients, 265 (52.3%) underwent early cholecystectomy, defined as surgery during the index admission, while 242 (47.7%) underwent delayed cholecystectomy, defined as postdischarge cholecystectomy or if cholecystectomy was not performed.
Overall, biliary complications occurred in as many as 23% of those who had delayed cholecystectomy compared with just 0.8% among those having the early cholecystectomy (P < .001).
Of patients who had delayed cholecystectomy and developed complications, 15.5% did so within 3 months, 6.5% by 6 months, and 1% by 12 months.
Among those who had ERCP with sphincterotomy, there were no significant differences in rates of biliary complications vs those who did not have sphincterotomy (26% vs 21%; P = .74), while stenting also did not reduce the risk (25% vs 27%; P = .81).
The leading reasons for delayed cholecystectomy included patients having a high surgical risk (27.3%), concurrent biliary pathology (19.2%), and physician preference (14%).
The findings underscore that “concurrent cholecystectomy is associated with the lowest risk of biliary complications,” El Halabi said.
“Delayed cholecystectomy is associated with an approximately 23% incidence of biliary complications with 1 year of initial admission, with the highest incidence occurring within 3 months,” she added. “Neither sphincterotomy nor stenting during ERCP mitigates this risk.”
“Early cholecystectomy during the index admission remains the most reliable strategy to reduce recurrent events.”
Findings Underscore Importance of Timing
Commenting on the study, Luis F. Lara, MD, division chief of digestive diseases at the University of Cincinnati, who co-moderated the session, agreed that evidence soundly supports early cholecystectomy.
“We also did a large study looking at this and there’s no doubt that doing it during the index admission has a tremendous effect on long-term outcomes,” Lara told GI & Hepatology News.
Lara noted that “part of it is people don’t show up again until they get sick again, so we don’t want to lose that opportunity the first time, during the index admission,” he said.
Lara’s previous studies have specifically documented how early cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis improves outcomes of hospitalization for cirrhosis and factors associated with early unplanned readmissions following same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis.
Akwi W. Asombang, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, agreed that the findings are important.
“We know that if a cholecystectomy is not performed in the same admission as ERCP, the stones in the gallbladder remain and may migrate out into the bile duct, resulting in further complications as described in the study,” Asombang, also a session co-moderator, told GI & Hepatology News.
She noted that the practice can vary between institutions based on factors including the availability of physicians to perform the cholecystectomy.
Potential complications in delaying the procedure can range from inflammation and pancreatitis to obstruction of the bile duct, “which then can result in cholangitis and eventually sepsis or even death,” Asombang cautioned.
“So the timing of the procedure with ERCP is definitely significant,” she said.
El Halabi and Asombang had no disclosures to report. Lara reported a relationship with AbbVie.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2025