Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

TOPLINE: 

Compared with other urine analysis methods, urine Gram stain has a moderate predictive value for detecting gram-negative bacteria in urine culture but does not significantly improve urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, encompassing 1358 episodes across 1136 patients suspected of having a UTI.
• The study included the following predefined subgroups: patients using urinary catheters and patients with leukopenia (< 4.0×10⁹ leucocytes/L). Urine dipstick nitrite, automated urinalysis, Gram stain, and urine cultures were performed on urine samples collected from patients presenting at the ED.
• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria (quantified as > 15/high power field) were compared with those of urine dipstick nitrite and automated bacterial counting in urinalysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria were 51.3% and 91.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 76.8%.
• Gram stain showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.7% for gram-negative rods in urine culture; however, the PPV was only 38.4% for gram-positive cocci.
• In the catheter subgroup, the presence of monomorphic bacteria quantified as “many” had a higher PPV for diagnosing a UTI than the presence of polymorphic bacteria with the same quantification.
• The overall performance of Gram stain in diagnosing a UTI in the ED was comparable to that of automated bacterial counting in urinalysis but better than that of urine dipstick nitrite.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC [urine culture], urine GS [Gram stain] does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stephanie J.M. Middelkoop, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. It was published online on August 16, 2024, in Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size within the leukopenia subgroup, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the potential influence of refrigeration of urine samples on bacterial growth could have affected the results. In this study, indwelling catheters were not replaced before urine sample collection, which may have affected the accuracy of UTI diagnosis in patients using catheters.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with other urine analysis methods, urine Gram stain has a moderate predictive value for detecting gram-negative bacteria in urine culture but does not significantly improve urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, encompassing 1358 episodes across 1136 patients suspected of having a UTI.
• The study included the following predefined subgroups: patients using urinary catheters and patients with leukopenia (< 4.0×10⁹ leucocytes/L). Urine dipstick nitrite, automated urinalysis, Gram stain, and urine cultures were performed on urine samples collected from patients presenting at the ED.
• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria (quantified as > 15/high power field) were compared with those of urine dipstick nitrite and automated bacterial counting in urinalysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria were 51.3% and 91.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 76.8%.
• Gram stain showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.7% for gram-negative rods in urine culture; however, the PPV was only 38.4% for gram-positive cocci.
• In the catheter subgroup, the presence of monomorphic bacteria quantified as “many” had a higher PPV for diagnosing a UTI than the presence of polymorphic bacteria with the same quantification.
• The overall performance of Gram stain in diagnosing a UTI in the ED was comparable to that of automated bacterial counting in urinalysis but better than that of urine dipstick nitrite.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC [urine culture], urine GS [Gram stain] does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stephanie J.M. Middelkoop, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. It was published online on August 16, 2024, in Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size within the leukopenia subgroup, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the potential influence of refrigeration of urine samples on bacterial growth could have affected the results. In this study, indwelling catheters were not replaced before urine sample collection, which may have affected the accuracy of UTI diagnosis in patients using catheters.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Compared with other urine analysis methods, urine Gram stain has a moderate predictive value for detecting gram-negative bacteria in urine culture but does not significantly improve urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnosis in the emergency department (ED).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands, encompassing 1358 episodes across 1136 patients suspected of having a UTI.
• The study included the following predefined subgroups: patients using urinary catheters and patients with leukopenia (< 4.0×10⁹ leucocytes/L). Urine dipstick nitrite, automated urinalysis, Gram stain, and urine cultures were performed on urine samples collected from patients presenting at the ED.
• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria (quantified as > 15/high power field) were compared with those of urine dipstick nitrite and automated bacterial counting in urinalysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The sensitivity and specificity of Gram stain for “many” bacteria were 51.3% and 91.0%, respectively, with an accuracy of 76.8%.
• Gram stain showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 84.7% for gram-negative rods in urine culture; however, the PPV was only 38.4% for gram-positive cocci.
• In the catheter subgroup, the presence of monomorphic bacteria quantified as “many” had a higher PPV for diagnosing a UTI than the presence of polymorphic bacteria with the same quantification.
• The overall performance of Gram stain in diagnosing a UTI in the ED was comparable to that of automated bacterial counting in urinalysis but better than that of urine dipstick nitrite.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the exception of a moderate prediction of gram-negative bacteria in the UC [urine culture], urine GS [Gram stain] does not improve UTI diagnosis at the ED compared to other urine parameters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Stephanie J.M. Middelkoop, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. It was published online on August 16, 2024, in Infectious Diseases.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations included a small sample size within the leukopenia subgroup, which may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the potential influence of refrigeration of urine samples on bacterial growth could have affected the results. In this study, indwelling catheters were not replaced before urine sample collection, which may have affected the accuracy of UTI diagnosis in patients using catheters.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD: Today we’re discussing liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer with our guest, Dr. Martin Dib. Dr. Dib is the director of the Hepatobiliary Surgery and Living Donor Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center here in Boston, and a Harvard Medical School faculty member.

He was previously at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a leading international institution investigating the role of liver transplant in colorectal cancer, among other diseases. Dr. Dib, before we move to our discussion, I’d like to hear a bit about your pathway to becoming a transplant surgeon. How did you end up working on colorectal cancer and liver transplants in this field?

Martin J. Dib, MD: Thank you so much, Dr. Schlechter. I am originally from Chile. I had an opportunity to come to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after medical school and I did liver regeneration research at the transplant center. After that, I was lucky enough to match as a general surgery resident at Beth Israel Deaconess.

This is my alma mater and I was able to graduate as a surgeon here. You and I had some paths together. After graduating from Harvard as a surgeon, I was trained in liver transplant, abdominal transplant, surgical oncology, and hepatobiliary surgery at the University of Toronto.

I have been developing this passion for being able to transplant cancer patients and use organ transplant techniques to be able to do complex resections for cancer.

Dr. Schlechter: Let’s talk about the topic for today, which is liver transplant and colorectal cancer. I’ll be honest — this is not a very familiar topic for a lot of oncologists. There are a lot of details that I think are new to us as oncologists. We need to expand this conversation to get access to patients for this.

First and foremost, can you talk about some of the parameters for a resectable liver metastasis vs unresectable disease that would be an indication for a liver transplant?

Dr. Dib: I think this is a very interesting topic because liver transplantation for cancer is not new. Liver transplantation started in the 1960s when people started doing liver transplants for advanced liver tumors. The problem is that they were selecting patients who had very advanced — and poor tumor biology — tumors. The outcomes were not good.

It was only in 1996 when the Milan criteria started. Mazzaferro and colleagues, using strict patient selection, were able to do liver transplant for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Having those excellent outcomes in selecting patients opened the field for what we now call transplant oncology, which is using selection criteria and using other methods to be able to select which patients will do well after transplantation, even with immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation for colorectal metastasis was used at the very beginning of the era of liver transplantation, but with very poor outcomes. It was abandoned because of the outcomes. It is exciting to see that after 20 years of not doing it, there was a group in Norway that started again. They are doing liver transplants for colorectal metastases (mets), but with very selected patients.

In Norway, they had a very unusual setting where they had more liver donors than patients on the list waiting for liver transplant. So they can’t share these livers and we’re all jealous, right? Every single country in the West struggles because we don’t have enough livers for the rest of the list. And they had a lot of livers to be able to transplant people.

They decided to transplant some selected patients with colorectal mets that were unresectable. And the surprise was that they found that they were able to get a 60% survival at 5 years. And so that was new. After that, in Norway, they started showing this data to other centers in the world. It wasn’t until this year that we could see not only the long-term data and long-term outcomes of using liver transplantation for unresectable colorectal mets, but also we’re now having data from a prospective clinical trial from France.

It was three countries in the prospective clinical trial: France, Belgium, and Italy. We now see that we have a little stronger data to support the use of liver transplants for unresectable colorectal mets.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s the TRANSMET study you’re referencing that was presented at ASCO in the late-breaking abstract session in 2024, and then more recently in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine. Both of those papers were led by René Adam. That was a cool presentation to sit through. I was in the room, and I was taking a ton of notes and there was a lot of info that came out of that.

First of all, it showed that patients who had received chemotherapy and were responding could then go on to liver transplant in that population. Impressively, 81% of the patients who were randomized to transplant received it. Frankly, that’s a big number, especially compared with the West, as you said, and in particular the US and here in New England where livers are a very precious commodity.

And even accounting for that, if you look at the intention-to-treat analysis, the 5-year overall survival in that population was 57% compared with 13% with chemotherapy. And that feels like a real number for chemotherapy. If you look at the per-protocol analysis, frankly, the numbers are higher.

It’s always a challenging assessment. What was also interesting to me was the pattern of recurrence, which in general was that recurrences were extrahepatic. So not only were patients rendered disease-free, but in general, the liver remained disease-free and only 3% of patients had liver-only recurrence and 11% had widespread metastatic disease.

The biggest group was lung metastases, at about 40%. Ultimately, they reported a progression-free survival of 17. 4 months for transplant compared with 6. 4 months with chemotherapy. On every parameter, it looks like liver transplant wins for these people. Help me out. Who are these people? How do we find these people?

What are the inclusions and exclusions for this population?

Dr. Dib: I think that’s very important. This is not a therapy that will be for every patient. These are selected patients who have liver-only unresectable colorectal mets. These are patients that don’t have any extrahepatic disease and that either the primary has been taken out already or that they have the primary present, but the plan is to take the primary and then do a liver transplantation after 3 months, hopefully after 6 months, of removing the primary.

These are patients who meet all the criteria that we have seen in terms of the best outcomes — patients that have Oslo scores of less than three. The Oslo trial, which included the SECA (Secondary Cancer)-I and SECA-II trials, basically showed that patients with a maximal tumor diameter of less than 5.5 with a pretransplant CEA (carcinoembryonic antigen) of less than 80 that do not have progression on chemotherapy, among other variables, do better. But the concept is that this is a therapy that will apply only to selected patients. That way we can continue to have adequate overall survival post-transplant that would be comparable to other diseases that we do liver transplants for.

Dr. Schlechter: Were there other biomarkers, any mutations that were included or excluded?

Dr. Dib: Yes. If you look at SECA-I, SECA-II trial outcomes, and also TRANSMET, they all say patients with BRAF mutations shouldn’t be transplanted. There are other parameters, including, for example, the site of the primary tumor. Patients with a left-sided colon primary tumor do much better than patients who have a right-sided primary tumor.

That’s not a complete contraindication, but if you look at the most updated inclusion criteria of programs, like the ones that the one that we have here at Beth Israel Deaconess and many others, the inclusion criteria protocols include patients who have only hepatic disease.

So, if there are no extrahepatic mets, the resection of the primary has been done or will be done after a multidisciplinary discussion. We want to make sure they have the absence of BRAF mutation, and that they don’t have disease progression while on chemotherapy. So hopefully we have data from enough months to be able to make sure that there’s no intrahepatic or extrahepatic progression while on chemotherapy.

And that’s including CEA and also looking at the imaging.

Dr. Schlechter: When you’re seeing a patient, how much chemo do you think they should have? What’s a good run chemotherapy-wise for these patients? Let’s say, before I refer a patient to you, how much chemo should they have? And then what should I do? Do I get a PET scan? Do I get MRI? What’s the right scanning I should do to prove there’s no extrahepatic disease before sending a patient in for consideration?

Dr. Dib: First, we need to confirm unresectability. Referring patients early is always a good measure to make sure that we’re all in agreement that it’s an unresectable patient. Having a PET scan from the very beginning is helpful because it shows the disease before doing chemotherapy.

In terms of the lines of chemotherapy, ideally in the TRANSMET trial, for example, the idea was to show tumor control for at least 3 months, with less than three lines of chemotherapy. Some patients will do that with FOLFIRI. It depends on the case.

I think some of those evaluations will need a multidisciplinary discussion. In our case, we are connected to the Norway team. We frequently talk with the Oslo team and an international community of transplant centers to get opinions on particular cases.

But I think referring patients early is a good measure. If we don’t think that they qualify, we will let the team know. We’re strictly looking at patients who have unresectable liver mets that don’t have extrahepatic disease. The idea is to do a primary tumor resection, and then get to transplantation, hopefully after 6 months. In some cases that have some concerns in terms of tumor biology, we may even extend the time from diagnosis to transplant to over 1.5 years.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And what’s the experience like for these patients? In training as a resident many years ago, I saw patients with cirrhosis who went on to have a liver transplant, and that was sort of trading one disease for another. What is the posttransplant, or the remission, experience of a liver transplant for colorectal cancer like for the patient?

Dr. Dib: That’s a very important point. I think that transplantation has gotten better and better, as has chemotherapy systemic therapy. The liver transplantation experience from 20 years ago has improved dramatically. I think the quality of life of liver transplant patients after transplantation has increased quite a bit.

At Beth Israel Deaconess, we have a liver transplant program that is doing over a 100 livers a year. And when you have a high-volume center, usually the experience gets better. The time in the hospital post-transplant decreases.

In general, when we’re doing liver transplants, patients are getting extubated in the OR 30% of the time. The vast majority of patients are going home within 1 or 2 weeks. They need to have immunosuppression for the rest of their lives. We have a very good program of transplant coordinators that will help the family and the patient to live with immunosuppression and live with a transplanted organ.

But I would say that we have many, many patients, especially these patients who are not patients with cirrhosis. Their health is not as deteriorated as patients who have low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) scores. They don’t have liver disease. They have cancer. So usually patients like that, many of them can go back to work and live a quality of life that is fairly reasonable.

Dr. Schlechter: That’s good to hear. When we hear statements like liver transplant for colon cancer, a lot of us have this picture of a much sicker population, but it’s interesting and true that the colorectal cancer population as a candidate for liver transplant is a much healthier population than the population with cirrhosis.

Let’s talk about organs and donors. Largely in the TRANSMET study, for example, that was cadaveric donors. Those were not living donors and you’ve done a lot of work on living donors. If the answer in the United States, because of limited access to organs, is going to be living donors, who are those donors?

What is that like? How do you identify them?

Dr. Dib: There’s a lot of advantages to using living donors for these patients. In any type of patient that needs a liver transplant, cadaveric donors or deceased donors is the same concept. There are two types of deceased donors: the brain-dead donors and donors after cardiac death. Those are hard to come by.

We still have 15%-20% mortality on the waiting list in the United States. We’re already still struggling to get enough donors to transplant the patients that are on the list. Now, if you add a new indication, which is unresectable colorectal mets, we need to make sure that the outcomes are equivalent to the patients who are going to be transplanted for other reasons.

Right now, for example, the 5-year overall survival of a patient with cirrhosis, or a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma, is over 80% 5-year survival. In the SECA trials and TRANSMET trial, if we do a good selection, I think we can get to 70% 5-year survival. But until we have more data, I think it’s a cautious measure to, as a field, try to use living donors and not compete with the rest of the list of patients who are already dying on the list for liver transplants.

Once we get more data, it’s going to be something that, in the transplant community, we may be able to use deceased donors. Especially deceased donors with maybe extended criteria that are not going to be used for other patients. We can do living-unrelated or living-related donations. Family members or also friends or neighbors or part of the community, even altruistic donors, can donate to a potential recipient. And that enables us to not only time the transplant in an adequate manner, because we’re able to transplant the patient early, but also time it so we can give the number of chemotherapy cycles that we want to give.

That’s a huge advantage. You don’t compete for a liver with the cadaveric waiting list of patients that are waiting for other reasons, and you can select the tumor biology very well because you know exactly when the surgery is going to be. For instance, we can say, okay, this patient has KRAS mutation, left-sided colon cancer, and has been having good tumor biology with no progression. We will wait 6 months from the primary tumor to the transplant, which is going to be 1 year from diagnosis to transplant. And we can see during that time whether they continue to have good tumor biology.

But if you have a deceased donor liver transplant, sometimes you can’t time that well and schedule it. It becomes a bit more tricky in terms of patient selection and making sure that we do this for the people who are going to benefit.

Dr. Schlechter: And how does donor matching work? Is it HLA (human leukocyte antigen) matched or ABO-matched? Who can donate when you say a living-related? For example, when we think about bone marrow transplantation, which we’re all familiar with in the oncology population, it’s an incredibly complex match process. Is this the same challenge?

Dr. Dib: No, it’s a little bit simpler. Living donors for liver transplants need to be between the ages of 18 and 60. They need to be relatively healthy, relatively fit, with a BMI hopefully less than 30, definitely less than 35. The compatibility is ABO compatibility. So, if they’re ABO-compatible, relatively young, relatively healthy, they would be a potential donor and we will go ahead and do a CT scan.

If the CT scan shows that they have a good, adequate anatomy, more than 90% of those will be good donors. I would say that out of 100 people who want to be donors, 25 of them will be adequate. One out of four people who want to save their family member and want to have this operation are able to donate half of their liver to their family member or loved one.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. And it’s helpful to know that the matching process is simpler. During his discussion, René Adam unequivocally stated that liver transplants are a new standard of care for colorectal cancer. And I guess my question is, do you agree with this statement? How do we balance the demand for living donors and the demand for deceased donors? Especially in a time of increasing fatty liver disease and obesity, other indications for liver transplant, causes of cirrhosis, and also in an era of young-onset colorectal cancer. Patients are younger. Is this a new standard of care? Do you agree with that statement?

Dr. Dib: I do agree with that statement. I think it’s important to understand that not all patients with colorectal mets are the same. Of the number of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer, let’s say 50% of them will have liver metastasis. Only 15%-20% of them will have liver-only metastasis.

This is only for patients who have liver-only metastasis without extrahepatic disease. And only maybe 15%-20% of them will meet all the criteria to be able to undergo liver transplantation. I think it’s for a very selective subset of patients who have very good tumor biology, generally young patients who don’t have any other alternative to having even a complex liver resection and are not able to get R0 resection. That is when we could think about doing liver transplantation.

It’s one more of the skills that we can have. It doesn’t mean that it will be the only skill, or the best skill, for all of the patients.

Dr. Schlechter: When a patient volunteers to be a living donor for a loved one or a family member, and they go through all the screening and they’re found to be a candidate, what is the surgical experience for that patient?

How long are they in the hospital? What sort of operation is that?

Dr. Dib: Living donors are very special patients. These are patients who do not need an operation. And the only reason they’re doing this is to save the life of their loved one. Donor safety is our priority number one, two, three, and four. The donor operation needs to be perfect.

And so we take good care of, first of all, selecting the living donors, making sure that they’re young and they don’t have any big contraindications. We also ensure that they are well informed of the process. The living donor surgery that we’re now doing is laparoscopic and minimally invasive. Here at Beth Israel Deaconess, we have done it laparoscopically with very good results.

I think that experience before and after the surgery gets so much better because of the better recovery. They’re able to go home, in general, within 4 or 5 days, and they get on with their normal life within 6-8 weeks. I think it’s important for them to know all the processes and the actual risks and benefits for the recipient.

Among those risks, I think it’s important for them to understand that this is a complex operation. Even if we do it laparoscopically or robotically, so that the scar is less, inside we’re still taking out half of the liver. That is a surgery that needs to be undertaken very meticulously, with a focus on minimizing any bleeding.

It’s a surgery that takes a long time. It takes about 6 hours. We do our best to try to minimize any risks.

Dr. Schlechter: Excellent. Thanks for that. Today we had Dr. Martin Dib joining us to discuss liver transplant for metastatic colorectal cancer. We discussed the various important criteria. We discussed that early referral to multidisciplinary centers that manage these is important to help get patients set up.

We discussed the fact that there are certain inclusion and exclusion criteria to consider. Obviously, unresectable disease is a critical determination that should be made by a liver surgeon. The absence of extrahepatic disease is important in staging with PET or other imaging. We discussed certain other biological exclusions.

There’s a relative contraindication of right-sided vs left-sided cancers, but right-sided cancers can be transplanted. We discussed that an elevated CEA greater than 80 is a contraindication, as are mutations in BRAF. We reviewed data from both the TRANSMET trial recently published in The Lancet and presented at ASCO in 2024, as well as the older Oslo criteria and Oslo trials and SECA trials.

And finally, we heard that donors can now come as living donors, a laparoscopic robotic surgery with a better safety profile, and greater access to organs that are ABO matched and not HLA matched because of the nature of the biology. Thank you again for joining us.


 

Benjamin L. Schlechter, MD, is senior physician, Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Martin J. Dib, MD, is member of the faculty, Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School; director of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this transcript appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Listeriosis during pregnancy, when invasive, can be fatal for the fetus, with a rate of fetal loss or neonatal death of 29%, investigators reported in an article alerting clinicians to this condition.

The article was prompted when the Reproductive Infectious Diseases team at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, “received many phone calls from concerned doctors and patients after the plant-based milk recall in early July,” Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, MD, told this news organization. “With such concerns, we updated our British Columbia guidelines for our patients but quickly realized that our recommendations would be useful across the country.”

The article was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Five Key Points

Dr. Wong and colleagues provided the following five points and recommendations:

First, invasive listeriosis (bacteremia or meningitis) in pregnancy can have major fetal consequences, including fetal loss or neonatal death in 29% of cases. Affected patients can be asymptomatic or experience gastrointestinal symptoms, myalgias, fevers, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or sepsis.

Second, pregnant people should avoid foods at a high risk for Listeria monocytogenes contamination, including unpasteurized dairy products, luncheon meats, refrigerated meat spreads, and prepared salads. They also should stay aware of Health Canada recalls.

Third, it is not necessary to investigate or treat patients who may have ingested contaminated food but are asymptomatic. Listeriosis can present at 2-3 months after exposure because the incubation period can be as long as 70 days.

Fourth, for patients with mild gastroenteritis or flu-like symptoms who may have ingested contaminated food, obtaining blood cultures or starting a 2-week course of oral amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily) could be considered.

Fifth, for patients with fever and possible exposure to L monocytogenes, blood cultures should be drawn immediately, and high-dose ampicillin should be initiated, along with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“While choosing safer foods in pregnancy is recommended, it is most important to be aware of Health Canada food recalls and pay attention to symptoms if you’ve ingested these foods,” said Dr. Wong. “Working with the BC Centre for Disease Control, our teams are actively monitoring for cases of listeriosis in pregnancy here in British Columbia.

“Thankfully,” he said, “there haven’t been any confirmed cases in British Columbia related to the plant-based milk recall, though the bacteria’s incubation period can be up to 70 days in pregnancy.”
 

No Increase Suspected

Commenting on the article, Khady Diouf, MD, director of global obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “It summarizes the main management, which is based mostly on expert opinion.”

US clinicians also should be reminded about listeriosis in pregnancy, she noted, pointing to “helpful guidance” from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Although the United States similarly experienced a recent listeriosis outbreak resulting from contaminated deli meats, both Dr. Wong and Dr. Diouf said that these outbreaks do not seem to signal an increase in listeriosis cases overall.

“Food-borne listeriosis seems to come in waves,” said Dr. Wong. “At a public health level, we certainly have better surveillance programs for Listeria infections. In 2023, Health Canada updated its Policy on L monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, which emphasizes the good manufacturing practices recommended for food processing environments to identify outbreaks earlier.”

“I think we get these recalls yearly, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember,” Dr. Diouf agreed.

No funding was declared, and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Listeriosis during pregnancy, when invasive, can be fatal for the fetus, with a rate of fetal loss or neonatal death of 29%, investigators reported in an article alerting clinicians to this condition.

The article was prompted when the Reproductive Infectious Diseases team at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, “received many phone calls from concerned doctors and patients after the plant-based milk recall in early July,” Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, MD, told this news organization. “With such concerns, we updated our British Columbia guidelines for our patients but quickly realized that our recommendations would be useful across the country.”

The article was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Five Key Points

Dr. Wong and colleagues provided the following five points and recommendations:

First, invasive listeriosis (bacteremia or meningitis) in pregnancy can have major fetal consequences, including fetal loss or neonatal death in 29% of cases. Affected patients can be asymptomatic or experience gastrointestinal symptoms, myalgias, fevers, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or sepsis.

Second, pregnant people should avoid foods at a high risk for Listeria monocytogenes contamination, including unpasteurized dairy products, luncheon meats, refrigerated meat spreads, and prepared salads. They also should stay aware of Health Canada recalls.

Third, it is not necessary to investigate or treat patients who may have ingested contaminated food but are asymptomatic. Listeriosis can present at 2-3 months after exposure because the incubation period can be as long as 70 days.

Fourth, for patients with mild gastroenteritis or flu-like symptoms who may have ingested contaminated food, obtaining blood cultures or starting a 2-week course of oral amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily) could be considered.

Fifth, for patients with fever and possible exposure to L monocytogenes, blood cultures should be drawn immediately, and high-dose ampicillin should be initiated, along with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“While choosing safer foods in pregnancy is recommended, it is most important to be aware of Health Canada food recalls and pay attention to symptoms if you’ve ingested these foods,” said Dr. Wong. “Working with the BC Centre for Disease Control, our teams are actively monitoring for cases of listeriosis in pregnancy here in British Columbia.

“Thankfully,” he said, “there haven’t been any confirmed cases in British Columbia related to the plant-based milk recall, though the bacteria’s incubation period can be up to 70 days in pregnancy.”
 

No Increase Suspected

Commenting on the article, Khady Diouf, MD, director of global obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “It summarizes the main management, which is based mostly on expert opinion.”

US clinicians also should be reminded about listeriosis in pregnancy, she noted, pointing to “helpful guidance” from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Although the United States similarly experienced a recent listeriosis outbreak resulting from contaminated deli meats, both Dr. Wong and Dr. Diouf said that these outbreaks do not seem to signal an increase in listeriosis cases overall.

“Food-borne listeriosis seems to come in waves,” said Dr. Wong. “At a public health level, we certainly have better surveillance programs for Listeria infections. In 2023, Health Canada updated its Policy on L monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, which emphasizes the good manufacturing practices recommended for food processing environments to identify outbreaks earlier.”

“I think we get these recalls yearly, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember,” Dr. Diouf agreed.

No funding was declared, and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Listeriosis during pregnancy, when invasive, can be fatal for the fetus, with a rate of fetal loss or neonatal death of 29%, investigators reported in an article alerting clinicians to this condition.

The article was prompted when the Reproductive Infectious Diseases team at The University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, “received many phone calls from concerned doctors and patients after the plant-based milk recall in early July,” Jeffrey Man Hay Wong, MD, told this news organization. “With such concerns, we updated our British Columbia guidelines for our patients but quickly realized that our recommendations would be useful across the country.”

The article was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.


 

Five Key Points

Dr. Wong and colleagues provided the following five points and recommendations:

First, invasive listeriosis (bacteremia or meningitis) in pregnancy can have major fetal consequences, including fetal loss or neonatal death in 29% of cases. Affected patients can be asymptomatic or experience gastrointestinal symptoms, myalgias, fevers, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or sepsis.

Second, pregnant people should avoid foods at a high risk for Listeria monocytogenes contamination, including unpasteurized dairy products, luncheon meats, refrigerated meat spreads, and prepared salads. They also should stay aware of Health Canada recalls.

Third, it is not necessary to investigate or treat patients who may have ingested contaminated food but are asymptomatic. Listeriosis can present at 2-3 months after exposure because the incubation period can be as long as 70 days.

Fourth, for patients with mild gastroenteritis or flu-like symptoms who may have ingested contaminated food, obtaining blood cultures or starting a 2-week course of oral amoxicillin (500 mg, three times daily) could be considered.

Fifth, for patients with fever and possible exposure to L monocytogenes, blood cultures should be drawn immediately, and high-dose ampicillin should be initiated, along with electronic fetal heart rate monitoring.

“While choosing safer foods in pregnancy is recommended, it is most important to be aware of Health Canada food recalls and pay attention to symptoms if you’ve ingested these foods,” said Dr. Wong. “Working with the BC Centre for Disease Control, our teams are actively monitoring for cases of listeriosis in pregnancy here in British Columbia.

“Thankfully,” he said, “there haven’t been any confirmed cases in British Columbia related to the plant-based milk recall, though the bacteria’s incubation period can be up to 70 days in pregnancy.”
 

No Increase Suspected

Commenting on the article, Khady Diouf, MD, director of global obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said, “It summarizes the main management, which is based mostly on expert opinion.”

US clinicians also should be reminded about listeriosis in pregnancy, she noted, pointing to “helpful guidance” from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Although the United States similarly experienced a recent listeriosis outbreak resulting from contaminated deli meats, both Dr. Wong and Dr. Diouf said that these outbreaks do not seem to signal an increase in listeriosis cases overall.

“Food-borne listeriosis seems to come in waves,” said Dr. Wong. “At a public health level, we certainly have better surveillance programs for Listeria infections. In 2023, Health Canada updated its Policy on L monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods, which emphasizes the good manufacturing practices recommended for food processing environments to identify outbreaks earlier.”

“I think we get these recalls yearly, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember,” Dr. Diouf agreed.

No funding was declared, and the authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The most likely diagnosis for this patient is veteran posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), given his history of combat exposure and symptoms, such as severe headaches, difficulty concentrating, mood swings, nightmares, flashbacks, increased startle response, and hypervigilance. MRI findings showing significant changes in the limbic system and hippocampal regions support this diagnosis. Other potential diagnoses, like traumatic brain injury, chronic migraine, and major depressive disorder, are less likely because of their inability to account for the full range of his symptoms and specific MRI abnormalities.

PTSD, experienced by a subset of individuals after exposure to life-threatening events, has a lifetime prevalence of 4%-7% and a current prevalence of 1%-3%, with higher rates in older women, those with more trauma, and combat veterans. Nearly half of US veterans are aged 65 or older, many being Vietnam-era veterans at elevated risk for PTSD. Prevalence rates in older veterans range between 1% and 22%.

PTSD is characterized by intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, nightmares, avoidance of reminders, hypervigilance, and sleep difficulties, significantly disrupting interpersonal and occupational functioning. Screening tools like the primary care (PC) PTSD-5 and PCL-5, used in primary care settings, are effective for early detection, provisional diagnosis, and monitoring of symptom changes. The clinician-administered PTSD scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition DSM-5 (CAPS-5) is the gold standard for diagnosis, particularly among veterans, with multimethod assessments combining self-report measures and semi-structured interviews recommended for accuracy. The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD diagnosis describe exposure to traumatic events, intrusion symptoms, avoidance behaviors, negative mood, and altered arousal, with symptoms persisting for over a month and causing significant distress or functional impairment. 

Research has identified consistent anatomical and functional changes in PTSD patients, such as smaller hippocampi, decreased corpus callosum and prefrontal cortex, increased amygdala reactivity, and decreased prefrontal cortex activity. PTSD, linked to alterations in brain regions involved in fear learning and memory, shows diminished structural integrity in executive function areas, reduced cortical volumes in the cingulate brain cortex and frontal regions, and reduced white matter integrity in key brain pathways. Neuroimaging findings, however, are primarily used for research currently and have yet to be widely implemented in clinical guidelines.

International PTSD treatment guidelines consistently recognize trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs), such as cognitive processing therapy (CPT), prolonged exposure (PE), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) as the gold standard. Recent guidelines have expanded the list of recommended treatments: The 2023 Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense guidelines in the United States also endorse therapies like written narrative exposure and brief eclectic therapy. Internationally, guidelines do not perfectly coincide, as the 2018 update from the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) gives the highest recommendations to PE and CPT but rates EMDR slightly lower for military veterans because of limited evidence. Overall, guidelines consistently advocate for trauma-focused psychological interventions as the primary treatment for PTSD.

Guidelines from NICE and the World Health Organization do not recommend medications as the primary treatment; the American Psychiatric Association and the US Department of Veterans Affairs support selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and prazosin but advise against benzodiazepines. Inpatient care may be necessary for individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others, or for those with severe PTSD from childhood abuse, to aid in emotional regulation and treatment.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.
Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The most likely diagnosis for this patient is veteran posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), given his history of combat exposure and symptoms, such as severe headaches, difficulty concentrating, mood swings, nightmares, flashbacks, increased startle response, and hypervigilance. MRI findings showing significant changes in the limbic system and hippocampal regions support this diagnosis. Other potential diagnoses, like traumatic brain injury, chronic migraine, and major depressive disorder, are less likely because of their inability to account for the full range of his symptoms and specific MRI abnormalities.

PTSD, experienced by a subset of individuals after exposure to life-threatening events, has a lifetime prevalence of 4%-7% and a current prevalence of 1%-3%, with higher rates in older women, those with more trauma, and combat veterans. Nearly half of US veterans are aged 65 or older, many being Vietnam-era veterans at elevated risk for PTSD. Prevalence rates in older veterans range between 1% and 22%.

PTSD is characterized by intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, nightmares, avoidance of reminders, hypervigilance, and sleep difficulties, significantly disrupting interpersonal and occupational functioning. Screening tools like the primary care (PC) PTSD-5 and PCL-5, used in primary care settings, are effective for early detection, provisional diagnosis, and monitoring of symptom changes. The clinician-administered PTSD scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition DSM-5 (CAPS-5) is the gold standard for diagnosis, particularly among veterans, with multimethod assessments combining self-report measures and semi-structured interviews recommended for accuracy. The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD diagnosis describe exposure to traumatic events, intrusion symptoms, avoidance behaviors, negative mood, and altered arousal, with symptoms persisting for over a month and causing significant distress or functional impairment. 

Research has identified consistent anatomical and functional changes in PTSD patients, such as smaller hippocampi, decreased corpus callosum and prefrontal cortex, increased amygdala reactivity, and decreased prefrontal cortex activity. PTSD, linked to alterations in brain regions involved in fear learning and memory, shows diminished structural integrity in executive function areas, reduced cortical volumes in the cingulate brain cortex and frontal regions, and reduced white matter integrity in key brain pathways. Neuroimaging findings, however, are primarily used for research currently and have yet to be widely implemented in clinical guidelines.

International PTSD treatment guidelines consistently recognize trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs), such as cognitive processing therapy (CPT), prolonged exposure (PE), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) as the gold standard. Recent guidelines have expanded the list of recommended treatments: The 2023 Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense guidelines in the United States also endorse therapies like written narrative exposure and brief eclectic therapy. Internationally, guidelines do not perfectly coincide, as the 2018 update from the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) gives the highest recommendations to PE and CPT but rates EMDR slightly lower for military veterans because of limited evidence. Overall, guidelines consistently advocate for trauma-focused psychological interventions as the primary treatment for PTSD.

Guidelines from NICE and the World Health Organization do not recommend medications as the primary treatment; the American Psychiatric Association and the US Department of Veterans Affairs support selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and prazosin but advise against benzodiazepines. Inpatient care may be necessary for individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others, or for those with severe PTSD from childhood abuse, to aid in emotional regulation and treatment.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.
Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

The most likely diagnosis for this patient is veteran posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), given his history of combat exposure and symptoms, such as severe headaches, difficulty concentrating, mood swings, nightmares, flashbacks, increased startle response, and hypervigilance. MRI findings showing significant changes in the limbic system and hippocampal regions support this diagnosis. Other potential diagnoses, like traumatic brain injury, chronic migraine, and major depressive disorder, are less likely because of their inability to account for the full range of his symptoms and specific MRI abnormalities.

PTSD, experienced by a subset of individuals after exposure to life-threatening events, has a lifetime prevalence of 4%-7% and a current prevalence of 1%-3%, with higher rates in older women, those with more trauma, and combat veterans. Nearly half of US veterans are aged 65 or older, many being Vietnam-era veterans at elevated risk for PTSD. Prevalence rates in older veterans range between 1% and 22%.

PTSD is characterized by intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, nightmares, avoidance of reminders, hypervigilance, and sleep difficulties, significantly disrupting interpersonal and occupational functioning. Screening tools like the primary care (PC) PTSD-5 and PCL-5, used in primary care settings, are effective for early detection, provisional diagnosis, and monitoring of symptom changes. The clinician-administered PTSD scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition DSM-5 (CAPS-5) is the gold standard for diagnosis, particularly among veterans, with multimethod assessments combining self-report measures and semi-structured interviews recommended for accuracy. The DSM-5 criteria for PTSD diagnosis describe exposure to traumatic events, intrusion symptoms, avoidance behaviors, negative mood, and altered arousal, with symptoms persisting for over a month and causing significant distress or functional impairment. 

Research has identified consistent anatomical and functional changes in PTSD patients, such as smaller hippocampi, decreased corpus callosum and prefrontal cortex, increased amygdala reactivity, and decreased prefrontal cortex activity. PTSD, linked to alterations in brain regions involved in fear learning and memory, shows diminished structural integrity in executive function areas, reduced cortical volumes in the cingulate brain cortex and frontal regions, and reduced white matter integrity in key brain pathways. Neuroimaging findings, however, are primarily used for research currently and have yet to be widely implemented in clinical guidelines.

International PTSD treatment guidelines consistently recognize trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBTs), such as cognitive processing therapy (CPT), prolonged exposure (PE), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) as the gold standard. Recent guidelines have expanded the list of recommended treatments: The 2023 Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense guidelines in the United States also endorse therapies like written narrative exposure and brief eclectic therapy. Internationally, guidelines do not perfectly coincide, as the 2018 update from the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) gives the highest recommendations to PE and CPT but rates EMDR slightly lower for military veterans because of limited evidence. Overall, guidelines consistently advocate for trauma-focused psychological interventions as the primary treatment for PTSD.

Guidelines from NICE and the World Health Organization do not recommend medications as the primary treatment; the American Psychiatric Association and the US Department of Veterans Affairs support selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and prazosin but advise against benzodiazepines. Inpatient care may be necessary for individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others, or for those with severe PTSD from childhood abuse, to aid in emotional regulation and treatment.

Jasvinder Chawla, MD, Professor of Neurology, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood; Director, Clinical Neurophysiology Lab, Department of Neurology, Hines VA Hospital, Hines, IL.
Jasvinder Chawla, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Section

Patients with tracheostomies require comprehensive planning to avoid adverse events. Technological improvement has enhanced our ability to support these patients with complex conditions in their home settings. However, clinical practice guidelines are lacking, and current practice relies on a consensus of expert opinions.^1-3

Once a patient who has had a tracheostomy begins transitioning care to home, identifying caregivers is vital.

CHEST

Caregivers need to be educated on daily tracheostomy care, airway clearance, and ventilator management.

CHEST

Protocols to standardize this transition, such as the “Trach Trail” protocol, help reduce ICU readmissions with new tracheostomies (P = .05), eliminate predischarge mortality (P = .05), and may decrease ICU length of stay (P = 0.72).⁴ Standardized protocols for aspects of tracheostomy care, such as the “Go-Bag” from Boston Children’s Hospital, ensure that a consistent approach keeps providers, families, and patients familiar with their equipment and safety procedures, improving outcomes and decreasing tracheostomy-related adverse events.^4-6

CHEST

Understanding the landscape surrounding which equipment companies have trained field respiratory therapists is crucial. Airway clearance is key to improving ventilation and oxygenation and maintaining tracheostomy patency. Knowing the types of airway clearance modalities used for each patient remains critical.

Trach care may look substantially different for some populations, like patients in the neonatal ICU. Trach changes may happen more frequently. Speaking valve times may be gradually increased while planning for possible decannulation. Skin care involving granulation tissue and stoma complications is particularly important for this population. Active infants need well-fitting trach ties to balance enough support to maintain their trach without causing skin breakdown or discomfort. Securing the trach to prevent pulling or dislodgement as infants become more active is crucial as developmental milestones are achieved.

We hope national societies prioritize standardizing care for this vulnerable population while promoting additional high-quality, patient-centered outcomes in research studies. Implementation strategies to promote interprofessional teams to enhance education, communication, and outcomes will reduce health care disparities.
 

References

1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 161. pp Sherman JM, Davis S, Albamonte-Petrick S, et al. Care of the child with a chronic tracheostomy. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(1):297-308. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.161.1.ats1-00 297-308, 2000

2. Mitchell RB, Hussey HM, Setzen G, et al. Clinical consensus statement: tracheostomy care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(1):6-20. Preprint. Posted online September 18, 2012. PMID: 22990518. doi: 10.1177/0194599812460376

3. Sterni LM, Collaco JM, Baker CD, et al; ATS Pediatric Chronic Home Ventilation Workgroup. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: pediatric chronic home invasive ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(8):e16-35. PMID: 27082538; PMCID: PMC5439679. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201602-0276ST

4. Cherney RL, Pandian V, Ninan A, et al. The Trach Trail: a systems-based pathway to improve quality of tracheostomy care and interdisciplinary collaboration. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(2):232-243. doi: 10.1177/0194599820917427

5. Brown J. Tracheostomy to noninvasive ventilation: from acute care to home. Sleep Med Clin. 2020;15(4):593-598. doi: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2020.08.003

6. Kohn J, McKeon M, Munhall D, Blanchette S, Wells S, Watters K. Standardization of pediatric tracheostomy care with “Go-bags.” Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;121:154-156. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.03.022

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Section

Patients with tracheostomies require comprehensive planning to avoid adverse events. Technological improvement has enhanced our ability to support these patients with complex conditions in their home settings. However, clinical practice guidelines are lacking, and current practice relies on a consensus of expert opinions.^1-3

Once a patient who has had a tracheostomy begins transitioning care to home, identifying caregivers is vital.

CHEST

Caregivers need to be educated on daily tracheostomy care, airway clearance, and ventilator management.

CHEST

Protocols to standardize this transition, such as the “Trach Trail” protocol, help reduce ICU readmissions with new tracheostomies (P = .05), eliminate predischarge mortality (P = .05), and may decrease ICU length of stay (P = 0.72).⁴ Standardized protocols for aspects of tracheostomy care, such as the “Go-Bag” from Boston Children’s Hospital, ensure that a consistent approach keeps providers, families, and patients familiar with their equipment and safety procedures, improving outcomes and decreasing tracheostomy-related adverse events.^4-6

CHEST

Understanding the landscape surrounding which equipment companies have trained field respiratory therapists is crucial. Airway clearance is key to improving ventilation and oxygenation and maintaining tracheostomy patency. Knowing the types of airway clearance modalities used for each patient remains critical.

Trach care may look substantially different for some populations, like patients in the neonatal ICU. Trach changes may happen more frequently. Speaking valve times may be gradually increased while planning for possible decannulation. Skin care involving granulation tissue and stoma complications is particularly important for this population. Active infants need well-fitting trach ties to balance enough support to maintain their trach without causing skin breakdown or discomfort. Securing the trach to prevent pulling or dislodgement as infants become more active is crucial as developmental milestones are achieved.

We hope national societies prioritize standardizing care for this vulnerable population while promoting additional high-quality, patient-centered outcomes in research studies. Implementation strategies to promote interprofessional teams to enhance education, communication, and outcomes will reduce health care disparities.
 

References

1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 161. pp Sherman JM, Davis S, Albamonte-Petrick S, et al. Care of the child with a chronic tracheostomy. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(1):297-308. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.161.1.ats1-00 297-308, 2000

2. Mitchell RB, Hussey HM, Setzen G, et al. Clinical consensus statement: tracheostomy care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(1):6-20. Preprint. Posted online September 18, 2012. PMID: 22990518. doi: 10.1177/0194599812460376

3. Sterni LM, Collaco JM, Baker CD, et al; ATS Pediatric Chronic Home Ventilation Workgroup. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: pediatric chronic home invasive ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(8):e16-35. PMID: 27082538; PMCID: PMC5439679. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201602-0276ST

4. Cherney RL, Pandian V, Ninan A, et al. The Trach Trail: a systems-based pathway to improve quality of tracheostomy care and interdisciplinary collaboration. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(2):232-243. doi: 10.1177/0194599820917427

5. Brown J. Tracheostomy to noninvasive ventilation: from acute care to home. Sleep Med Clin. 2020;15(4):593-598. doi: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2020.08.003

6. Kohn J, McKeon M, Munhall D, Blanchette S, Wells S, Watters K. Standardization of pediatric tracheostomy care with “Go-bags.” Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;121:154-156. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.03.022

SLEEP MEDICINE NETWORK

Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation and Neuromuscular Section

Patients with tracheostomies require comprehensive planning to avoid adverse events. Technological improvement has enhanced our ability to support these patients with complex conditions in their home settings. However, clinical practice guidelines are lacking, and current practice relies on a consensus of expert opinions.^1-3

Once a patient who has had a tracheostomy begins transitioning care to home, identifying caregivers is vital.

CHEST

Caregivers need to be educated on daily tracheostomy care, airway clearance, and ventilator management.

CHEST

Protocols to standardize this transition, such as the “Trach Trail” protocol, help reduce ICU readmissions with new tracheostomies (P = .05), eliminate predischarge mortality (P = .05), and may decrease ICU length of stay (P = 0.72).⁴ Standardized protocols for aspects of tracheostomy care, such as the “Go-Bag” from Boston Children’s Hospital, ensure that a consistent approach keeps providers, families, and patients familiar with their equipment and safety procedures, improving outcomes and decreasing tracheostomy-related adverse events.^4-6

CHEST

Understanding the landscape surrounding which equipment companies have trained field respiratory therapists is crucial. Airway clearance is key to improving ventilation and oxygenation and maintaining tracheostomy patency. Knowing the types of airway clearance modalities used for each patient remains critical.

Trach care may look substantially different for some populations, like patients in the neonatal ICU. Trach changes may happen more frequently. Speaking valve times may be gradually increased while planning for possible decannulation. Skin care involving granulation tissue and stoma complications is particularly important for this population. Active infants need well-fitting trach ties to balance enough support to maintain their trach without causing skin breakdown or discomfort. Securing the trach to prevent pulling or dislodgement as infants become more active is crucial as developmental milestones are achieved.

We hope national societies prioritize standardizing care for this vulnerable population while promoting additional high-quality, patient-centered outcomes in research studies. Implementation strategies to promote interprofessional teams to enhance education, communication, and outcomes will reduce health care disparities.
 

References

1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Vol 161. pp Sherman JM, Davis S, Albamonte-Petrick S, et al. Care of the child with a chronic tracheostomy. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161(1):297-308. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.161.1.ats1-00 297-308, 2000

2. Mitchell RB, Hussey HM, Setzen G, et al. Clinical consensus statement: tracheostomy care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(1):6-20. Preprint. Posted online September 18, 2012. PMID: 22990518. doi: 10.1177/0194599812460376

3. Sterni LM, Collaco JM, Baker CD, et al; ATS Pediatric Chronic Home Ventilation Workgroup. An official American Thoracic Society clinical practice guideline: pediatric chronic home invasive ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(8):e16-35. PMID: 27082538; PMCID: PMC5439679. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201602-0276ST

4. Cherney RL, Pandian V, Ninan A, et al. The Trach Trail: a systems-based pathway to improve quality of tracheostomy care and interdisciplinary collaboration. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;163(2):232-243. doi: 10.1177/0194599820917427

5. Brown J. Tracheostomy to noninvasive ventilation: from acute care to home. Sleep Med Clin. 2020;15(4):593-598. doi: 10.1016/j.jsmc.2020.08.003

6. Kohn J, McKeon M, Munhall D, Blanchette S, Wells S, Watters K. Standardization of pediatric tracheostomy care with “Go-bags.” Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;121:154-156. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.03.022

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Lung Transplant Section

Hyperammonemia after lung transplantation (HALT) is a rare but serious complication occurring in 1% to 4% of patients with high morbidity and mortality. Typically presenting within 2 weeks post transplant, HALT manifests as elevated serum ammonia levels with symptoms ranging from encephalopathy to seizures and cerebral edema. Early recognition is crucial, as mortality rates can reach 75%.¹

CHEST

HALT arises from excess ammonia production or decreased clearance and is often linked to infections by urea-splitting organisms, including mycoplasma and ureaplasma. Prompt, aggressive treatment is essential and typically includes dietary protein restriction, renal replacement therapy (ideally intermittent hemodialysis), bowel decontamination (lactulose, rifaximin, metronidazole, or neomycin), amino acids (arginine and levocarnitine), nitrogen scavengers (sodium phenylbutyrate or glycerol phenylbutyrate), and empiric antimicrobial coverage for urea-splitting organisms.² Given concerns for calcineurin inhibitor-induced hyperammonemia, transition to an alternative agent may be considered.

CHEST

References

1. Leger RF, Silverman MS, Hauck ES, Guvakova KD. Hyperammonemia post lung transplantation: a review. Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med. 2020;14:1179548420966234. doi:10.1177/1179548420966234

2. Chen C, Bain KB, Luppa JA. Hyperammonemia syndrome after lung transplantation: a single center experience. Transplantation. 2016;100(3):678-684. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000000868
 

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Lung Transplant Section

Hyperammonemia after lung transplantation (HALT) is a rare but serious complication occurring in 1% to 4% of patients with high morbidity and mortality. Typically presenting within 2 weeks post transplant, HALT manifests as elevated serum ammonia levels with symptoms ranging from encephalopathy to seizures and cerebral edema. Early recognition is crucial, as mortality rates can reach 75%.¹

CHEST

HALT arises from excess ammonia production or decreased clearance and is often linked to infections by urea-splitting organisms, including mycoplasma and ureaplasma. Prompt, aggressive treatment is essential and typically includes dietary protein restriction, renal replacement therapy (ideally intermittent hemodialysis), bowel decontamination (lactulose, rifaximin, metronidazole, or neomycin), amino acids (arginine and levocarnitine), nitrogen scavengers (sodium phenylbutyrate or glycerol phenylbutyrate), and empiric antimicrobial coverage for urea-splitting organisms.² Given concerns for calcineurin inhibitor-induced hyperammonemia, transition to an alternative agent may be considered.

CHEST

References

1. Leger RF, Silverman MS, Hauck ES, Guvakova KD. Hyperammonemia post lung transplantation: a review. Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med. 2020;14:1179548420966234. doi:10.1177/1179548420966234

2. Chen C, Bain KB, Luppa JA. Hyperammonemia syndrome after lung transplantation: a single center experience. Transplantation. 2016;100(3):678-684. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000000868
 

DIFFUSE LUNG DISEASE AND LUNG TRANSPLANT NETWORK

Lung Transplant Section

Hyperammonemia after lung transplantation (HALT) is a rare but serious complication occurring in 1% to 4% of patients with high morbidity and mortality. Typically presenting within 2 weeks post transplant, HALT manifests as elevated serum ammonia levels with symptoms ranging from encephalopathy to seizures and cerebral edema. Early recognition is crucial, as mortality rates can reach 75%.¹

CHEST

HALT arises from excess ammonia production or decreased clearance and is often linked to infections by urea-splitting organisms, including mycoplasma and ureaplasma. Prompt, aggressive treatment is essential and typically includes dietary protein restriction, renal replacement therapy (ideally intermittent hemodialysis), bowel decontamination (lactulose, rifaximin, metronidazole, or neomycin), amino acids (arginine and levocarnitine), nitrogen scavengers (sodium phenylbutyrate or glycerol phenylbutyrate), and empiric antimicrobial coverage for urea-splitting organisms.² Given concerns for calcineurin inhibitor-induced hyperammonemia, transition to an alternative agent may be considered.

CHEST

References

1. Leger RF, Silverman MS, Hauck ES, Guvakova KD. Hyperammonemia post lung transplantation: a review. Clin Med Insights Circ Respir Pulm Med. 2020;14:1179548420966234. doi:10.1177/1179548420966234

2. Chen C, Bain KB, Luppa JA. Hyperammonemia syndrome after lung transplantation: a single center experience. Transplantation. 2016;100(3):678-684. doi:10.1097/TP.0000000000000868
 

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.

We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.

There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies. 

Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.

James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.

This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study. 

This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines. 

At baseline, their apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, was greater than 50. At the end of the study, we saw that there was a mean reduction in the AHI by over 60%. That was a big reduction. 

Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?

Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.

What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death. 

We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.

Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely. 

Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.

Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day. 

Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.

Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA. 

What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. 

Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.

It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well. 

This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care. 

Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective. 

From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea. 

Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.

Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.

We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.

There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies. 

Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.

James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.

This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study. 

This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines. 

At baseline, their apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, was greater than 50. At the end of the study, we saw that there was a mean reduction in the AHI by over 60%. That was a big reduction. 

Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?

Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.

What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death. 

We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.

Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely. 

Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.

Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day. 

Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.

Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA. 

What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. 

Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.

It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well. 

This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care. 

Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective. 

From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea. 

Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.

Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Akshay B. Jain, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Akshay Jain, an endocrinologist in Vancouver, Canada, and with me is a very special guest. Today we have Dr. James Kim, a primary care physician working in Calgary, Canada. Both Dr. Kim and I were fortunate to attend the recently concluded American Diabetes Association annual conference in Orlando in June.

We thought we could share with you some of the key learnings that we found very insightful and clinically quite relevant. We were hoping to bring our own conclusion regarding what these findings were, both from a primary care perspective and an endocrinology perspective.

There were so many different studies that, frankly, it was difficult to pick them, but we handpicked a few studies we felt we could do a bit of a deeper dive on, and we’ll talk about each of these studies. 

Welcome, Dr. Kim, and thanks for joining us.

James W. Kim, MBBCh, PgDip, MScCH: Thank you so much, Dr Jain. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Dr. Jain: Probably the best place to start would be with the SURMOUNT-OSA study. This was highlighted at the American Diabetes Association conference. Essentially, it looked at people who are living with obesity who also had obstructive sleep apnea.

This was a randomized controlled trial where individuals tested either got tirzepatide (trade name, Mounjaro) or placebo treatment. They looked at the change in their apnea-hypopnea index at the end of the study. 

This included both people who were using CPAP machines and those who were not using CPAP machines at baseline. We do know that many individuals with sleep apnea may not use these machines. 

At baseline, their apnea-hypopnea index, or AHI, was greater than 50. At the end of the study, we saw that there was a mean reduction in the AHI by over 60%. That was a big reduction. 

Dr. Kim, what’s the relevance of this study in primary care?

Dr. Kim: Oh, it’s massive. Obstructive sleep apnea is probably one of the most underdiagnosed yet huge cardiac risk factors that we tend to overlook in primary care. We sometimes say, oh, it’s just sleep apnea; what’s the big deal? We know it’s a big problem. We know that more than 50% of people with type 2 diabetes have obstructive sleep apnea, and some studies have even quoted that 90% of their population cohorts had sleep apnea. This is a big deal.

What do we know so far? We know that obstructive sleep apnea, which I’m just going to call OSA, increases the risk for hypertension, bad cholesterol, and worsening blood glucose in terms of A1c and fasting glucose, which eventually leads to myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, stroke, and eventually cardiovascular death. 

We also know that people with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk for OSA. There seems to be a bidirectional relationship between diabetes and OSA. It seems like weight plays the biggest role in terms of developing OSA, and numerous studies have shown this.

Also, thankfully, some of the studies showed that weight loss improves not just OSA but also blood pressure, cholesterol, blood glucose, and insulin sensitivities. These have been fascinating. We see these patients every single day. If you think about it in your population, for 50%-90% of the patients to have OSA is a large number. If you haven’t seen a person with OSA this week, you probably missed them, very likely. 

Therefore, the SURMOUNT-OSA trial was quite fascinating with, as you mentioned, 50%-60% reduction in the severity of OSA, which is very impressive. Even more impressive, I think, is that for about 50% of the patients on tirzepatide, the OSA improves so much that they may not even need to be on CPAP machines.

Those who were on CPAP may not need to be on CPAP any longer. These are huge data, especially for primary care, because as you mentioned, we see these people every single day. 

Dr. Jain: Thanks for pointing that out. Clearly, it’s very clinically relevant. I think the most important takeaway for me from this study was the correlation between weight loss and AHI improvement.

Clearly, it showed that placebo had about a 6% drop in AHI, whereas there was a 60% drop in the tirzepatide group, so you can see that it’s significantly different. The placebo group did not have any significant degree of weight loss, whereas the tirzepatide group had nearly 20% weight loss. This again goes to show that there is a very close correlation between weight loss and improvement in OSA. 

What’s very important to note is that we’ve seen this in the past as well. We had seen some of these data with other GLP-1 agents, but the extent of improvement that we have seen in the SURMOUNT-OSA trial is significantly more than what we’ve seen in previous studies. There is a ray of hope now where we have medical management to offer people who are living with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. 

Dr. Kim: I want to add that, from a primary care perspective, this study also showed the improvement of the sleep apnea–related symptoms as well. The biggest problem with sleep apnea — or at least what patients’ spouses complain of, is the person snoring too much; it’s a symptom.

It’s the next-day symptoms that really do disturb people, like chronic fatigue. I have numerous patients who say that, once they’ve been treated for sleep apnea, they feel like a brand-new person. They have sudden bursts of energy that they never felt before, and over 50% of these people have huge improvements in the symptoms as well. 

This is a huge trial. The only thing that I wish this study included were people with mild obstructive sleep apnea who were symptomatic. I do understand that, with other studies in this population, the data have been conflicting, but it would have been really awesome if they had those patients included. However, it is still a significant study for primary care. 

Dr. Jain: That’s a really good point. Fatigue improves and overall quality of life improves. That’s very important from a primary care perspective. 

From an endocrinology perspective, we know that management of sleep apnea can often lead to improvement in male hypogonadism, polycystic ovary syndrome, and insulin resistance. The amount of insulin required, or the number of medications needed for managing diabetes, can improve. Hypertension can improve as well. There are multiple benefits that you can get from appropriate management of sleep apnea. 

Thanks, Dr. Kim. We really appreciate your insights on SURMOUNT-OSA.

Dr. Jain is a clinical instructor, Department of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Dr. Kim is a clinical assistant professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary in Alberta. Both disclosed conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024. 

Click to view more from Pulmonology Data Trends 2024.