User login
Endoscopic Lifting Agents: AGA Issues New Clinical Practice Update
Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.
Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”
Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.
“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.
Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.
For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.
Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.
Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).
Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm.
The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.
For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.
In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.
Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”
Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”
In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”
This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute.
Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.
Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”
Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.
“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.
Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.
For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.
Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.
Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).
Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm.
The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.
For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.
In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.
Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”
Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”
In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”
This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute.
Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.
Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”
Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.
“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.
Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.
For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.
Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.
Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).
Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm.
The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.
For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.
In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.
Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”
Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”
In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”
This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute.
Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
IBS, Chronic Idiopathic Constipation Surged During Pandemic
, with a near doubling of the national rate of IBS over 2 years, a study has found.
The uptick is probably due to not only the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the gastrointestinal tract but also to the psychological stress associated with pandemic life, the study team said.
“COVID infection itself can definitely cause gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain — and for some people, those symptoms can linger and lead to chronic conditions like IBS,” Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, told GI & Hepatology News.
“But the stress of living through the pandemic — lockdowns, fear, isolation — also likely played a major role as well in the increased prevalence of digestive disorders. Both the infection itself and the psychological toll of the pandemic can disrupt the gut-brain axis and trigger chronic digestive disorders like IBS,” Almario said.
The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.
Growing Burden of Gut Disorders
Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions in which gastrointestinal symptoms occur without any detectable structural or biochemical abnormalities in the digestive tract. They include IBS, functional dyspepsia, and chronic idiopathic constipation, among others.
DGBIs are highly prevalent. Research has shown that nearly 40% of people in the US meet Rome IV criteria for at least one DGBI.
Almario and colleagues assessed trends in prevalence of these conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in May 2020 through May 2022, they conducted a series of online surveys with more than 160,000 adults aged 18 or older using validated Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires.
Results showed that during the pandemic, IBS prevalence rose from 6.1% in May 2020 to 11.0% by May 2022, an increase of 0.188% per month (adjusted P < .001).
Chronic idiopathic constipation showed a smaller but statistically significant increase, from 6.0% to 6.4% (0.056% per month; adjusted P < .001).
Within the IBS subtypes, mixed-type IBS showed the largest relative increase (0.085% per month), followed by IBS with constipation (0.041% per month) and IBS with diarrhea (0.037% per month).
There were no significant changes in the prevalence of other DGBIs, such as functional bloating, functional diarrhea, or functional dyspepsia, during the study period.
Almario told GI & Hepatology News only about 9% of those surveyed reported a positive COVID test at the time of the surveys, but that figure probably underrepresents actual infections, especially in the early months of the pandemic. “Most of the survey responses came in during the earlier phases of the pandemic, and the percentage reporting a positive test increased over time,” he explained.
Almario also noted that this study did not directly compare digestive disorder rates between infected and uninfected individuals. However, a separate study by the Cedars-Sinai team currently undergoing peer review addresses that question more directly. “That study, along with several other studies, show that having COVID increases the risk of developing conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia,” Almario said.
Taken together, the findings “underscore the increasing healthcare and economic burden of DGBI in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts to effectively diagnose and manage these complex conditions,” they wrote.
“This will be especially challenging for healthcare systems to address, given the existing shortage of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists — clinicians who primarily manage individuals with DGBI,” they noted.
Support for this study was received from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Salix Pharmaceuticals in the form of institutional research grants to Cedars-Sinai. Almario has consulted for Exact Sciences, Greenspace Labs, Owlstone Medical, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Universal DX.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, with a near doubling of the national rate of IBS over 2 years, a study has found.
The uptick is probably due to not only the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the gastrointestinal tract but also to the psychological stress associated with pandemic life, the study team said.
“COVID infection itself can definitely cause gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain — and for some people, those symptoms can linger and lead to chronic conditions like IBS,” Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, told GI & Hepatology News.
“But the stress of living through the pandemic — lockdowns, fear, isolation — also likely played a major role as well in the increased prevalence of digestive disorders. Both the infection itself and the psychological toll of the pandemic can disrupt the gut-brain axis and trigger chronic digestive disorders like IBS,” Almario said.
The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.
Growing Burden of Gut Disorders
Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions in which gastrointestinal symptoms occur without any detectable structural or biochemical abnormalities in the digestive tract. They include IBS, functional dyspepsia, and chronic idiopathic constipation, among others.
DGBIs are highly prevalent. Research has shown that nearly 40% of people in the US meet Rome IV criteria for at least one DGBI.
Almario and colleagues assessed trends in prevalence of these conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in May 2020 through May 2022, they conducted a series of online surveys with more than 160,000 adults aged 18 or older using validated Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires.
Results showed that during the pandemic, IBS prevalence rose from 6.1% in May 2020 to 11.0% by May 2022, an increase of 0.188% per month (adjusted P < .001).
Chronic idiopathic constipation showed a smaller but statistically significant increase, from 6.0% to 6.4% (0.056% per month; adjusted P < .001).
Within the IBS subtypes, mixed-type IBS showed the largest relative increase (0.085% per month), followed by IBS with constipation (0.041% per month) and IBS with diarrhea (0.037% per month).
There were no significant changes in the prevalence of other DGBIs, such as functional bloating, functional diarrhea, or functional dyspepsia, during the study period.
Almario told GI & Hepatology News only about 9% of those surveyed reported a positive COVID test at the time of the surveys, but that figure probably underrepresents actual infections, especially in the early months of the pandemic. “Most of the survey responses came in during the earlier phases of the pandemic, and the percentage reporting a positive test increased over time,” he explained.
Almario also noted that this study did not directly compare digestive disorder rates between infected and uninfected individuals. However, a separate study by the Cedars-Sinai team currently undergoing peer review addresses that question more directly. “That study, along with several other studies, show that having COVID increases the risk of developing conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia,” Almario said.
Taken together, the findings “underscore the increasing healthcare and economic burden of DGBI in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts to effectively diagnose and manage these complex conditions,” they wrote.
“This will be especially challenging for healthcare systems to address, given the existing shortage of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists — clinicians who primarily manage individuals with DGBI,” they noted.
Support for this study was received from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Salix Pharmaceuticals in the form of institutional research grants to Cedars-Sinai. Almario has consulted for Exact Sciences, Greenspace Labs, Owlstone Medical, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Universal DX.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, with a near doubling of the national rate of IBS over 2 years, a study has found.
The uptick is probably due to not only the direct impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the gastrointestinal tract but also to the psychological stress associated with pandemic life, the study team said.
“COVID infection itself can definitely cause gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhea, nausea, and abdominal pain — and for some people, those symptoms can linger and lead to chronic conditions like IBS,” Christopher V. Almario, MD, MSHPM, lead author and gastroenterologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, told GI & Hepatology News.
“But the stress of living through the pandemic — lockdowns, fear, isolation — also likely played a major role as well in the increased prevalence of digestive disorders. Both the infection itself and the psychological toll of the pandemic can disrupt the gut-brain axis and trigger chronic digestive disorders like IBS,” Almario said.
The study was published in Neurogastroenterology & Motility.
Growing Burden of Gut Disorders
Disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs) are a heterogeneous group of conditions in which gastrointestinal symptoms occur without any detectable structural or biochemical abnormalities in the digestive tract. They include IBS, functional dyspepsia, and chronic idiopathic constipation, among others.
DGBIs are highly prevalent. Research has shown that nearly 40% of people in the US meet Rome IV criteria for at least one DGBI.
Almario and colleagues assessed trends in prevalence of these conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Starting in May 2020 through May 2022, they conducted a series of online surveys with more than 160,000 adults aged 18 or older using validated Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires.
Results showed that during the pandemic, IBS prevalence rose from 6.1% in May 2020 to 11.0% by May 2022, an increase of 0.188% per month (adjusted P < .001).
Chronic idiopathic constipation showed a smaller but statistically significant increase, from 6.0% to 6.4% (0.056% per month; adjusted P < .001).
Within the IBS subtypes, mixed-type IBS showed the largest relative increase (0.085% per month), followed by IBS with constipation (0.041% per month) and IBS with diarrhea (0.037% per month).
There were no significant changes in the prevalence of other DGBIs, such as functional bloating, functional diarrhea, or functional dyspepsia, during the study period.
Almario told GI & Hepatology News only about 9% of those surveyed reported a positive COVID test at the time of the surveys, but that figure probably underrepresents actual infections, especially in the early months of the pandemic. “Most of the survey responses came in during the earlier phases of the pandemic, and the percentage reporting a positive test increased over time,” he explained.
Almario also noted that this study did not directly compare digestive disorder rates between infected and uninfected individuals. However, a separate study by the Cedars-Sinai team currently undergoing peer review addresses that question more directly. “That study, along with several other studies, show that having COVID increases the risk of developing conditions like IBS and functional dyspepsia,” Almario said.
Taken together, the findings “underscore the increasing healthcare and economic burden of DGBI in the post-pandemic era, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts to effectively diagnose and manage these complex conditions,” they wrote.
“This will be especially challenging for healthcare systems to address, given the existing shortage of primary care physicians and gastroenterologists — clinicians who primarily manage individuals with DGBI,” they noted.
Support for this study was received from Ironwood Pharmaceuticals and Salix Pharmaceuticals in the form of institutional research grants to Cedars-Sinai. Almario has consulted for Exact Sciences, Greenspace Labs, Owlstone Medical, Salix Pharmaceuticals, and Universal DX.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
How Common Meds Can Secretly Wreck Your Patients’ Microbiome
Effective ways to combat harmful viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasitic worms have driven major advances in medicine and contributed to a significant increase in human life expectancy over the past century. However, as knowledge about the role of these microorganisms in promoting and maintaining health deepens, there is a need for a new look at the impact of these treatments.
The list of drugs that can directly alter the gut microbiota is long. In addition to antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anthelmintics, proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), laxatives, oral antidiabetics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, statins, chemotherapeutics, and immunosuppressants can trigger dysbiosis.
A 2020 study published in Nature Communications, which analyzed the impact of common medications on the composition and metabolic function of the gut bacteria, showed that , most notably antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors, laxatives, and metformin.
“There are still no protocols aimed at preserving the microbiota during pharmacological treatment. Future research should identify biomarkers of drug-induced dysbiosis and potentially adapt live biotherapeutics to counteract it,” said Maria Júlia Segantini, MD, a coloproctologist at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Known Facts
Antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and anthelmintics eliminate pathogens but can also disrupt the microbiota across the gut, skin, mouth, lungs, and genitourinary tract.
“This ecosystem is part of the innate immune system and helps to balance inflammation and homeostasis. Loss of microbial diversity alters interspecies interactions and changes nutrient availability, which can undermine the ability to fend off pathogens,” said Segantini, noting the role of microbiota in vitamin K and B-complex production.
“The microbiome may lose its ability to prevent pathogens from taking hold. This is due to the loss of microbial diversity, changes in interactions between species, and the availability of nutrients,” she added.
Antibiotics, as is well known, eliminate bacterial species indiscriminately, reduce the presence of beneficial bacteria in the gut, and, therefore, favor the growth of opportunistic pathogenic microorganisms. However, in addition to their direct effects on microorganisms, different medications can alter the intestinal microbiota through various mechanisms linked to their specific actions. Here are some examples:
Proton pump inhibitors: These can facilitate the translocation of bacteria from the mouth to the intestine and affect the metabolic functions of the intestinal microbiota. “In users of these medications, there may be an enrichment of pathways related to carbohydrate metabolism, such as glycolysis and pyruvate metabolism, indicating possible changes in intestinal metabolism,” Segantini explained.
NSAIDs: NSAIDs can modify the function and composition of the intestinal microbiota, favor the growth of pathogenic species, and reduce the diversity of preexisting bacteria by reducing the presence of beneficial commensal bacteria, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. “This is due to changes in the permeability of the intestinal wall, due to the inhibition of prostaglandins that help maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier, enteropathy induced by NSAIDs, and drug interactions,” said Segantini.
Laxatives: Accelerated intestinal transit using laxatives impairs the quality of the microbiota and alters bile acid. Osmotic agents, such as lactulose and polyethylene glycol, may decrease resistance to infection.
“Studies in animal models indicate that polyethylene glycol can increase the proportion of Bacteroides and reduce the abundance of Bacteroidales bacteria, with lasting repercussions on the intestinal microbiota. Stimulant laxatives, in addition to causing an acceleration of the evacuation flow, can lead to a decrease in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are important for intestinal health,” Segantini explained.
Chemotherapeutics: Chemotherapeutic agents can significantly influence the intestinal microbiota and affect its composition, diversity, and functionality, which in turn can affect the efficacy of treatment and the occurrence of adverse effects. “5-fluorouracil led to a decrease in the abundance of beneficial anaerobic genera, such as Blautia, and an increase in opportunistic pathogens, such as Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli, during chemotherapy. In addition, it can lead to an increase in the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria while reducing Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. These changes can affect the function of the intestinal barrier and the immune response. Other problems related to chemotherapy-induced dysbiosis are the adverse effects themselves, such as diarrhea and mucositis,” said Segantini.
Statins: Animal studies suggest that treatment with statins, including atorvastatin, may alter the composition of the gut microbiota. “These changes include the reduction of beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia muciniphila, and the increase in intestinal pathogens, resulting in intestinal dysbiosis. The use of statins can affect the diversity of the intestinal microbiota, although the results vary according to the type of statin and the clinical context.”
“Statins can activate intestinal nuclear receptors, such as pregnane X receptors, which modulate the expression of genes involved in bile metabolism and the inflammatory response. This activation can contribute to changes in the intestinal microbiota and associated metabolic processes. Although statins play a fundamental role in reducing cardiovascular risk, their interactions with the intestinal microbiota can influence the efficacy of treatment and the profile of adverse effects,” said Segantini.
Immunosuppressants: The use of immunosuppressants, such as corticosteroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate, has been associated with changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. “Immunosuppressant-induced dysbiosis can compromise the intestinal barrier, increase permeability, and facilitate bacterial translocation. This can result in opportunistic infections by pathogens and post-transplant complications, such as graft rejection and post-transplant diabetes,” Segantini stated.
“Alteration of the gut microbiota by immunosuppressants may influence the host’s immune response. For example, tacrolimus has been associated with an increase in the abundance of Allobaculum, Bacteroides, and Lactobacillus, in addition to elevated levels of regulatory T cells in the colonic mucosa and circulation, suggesting a role in modulating gut immunity,” she said.
Antipsychotics: Antipsychotics can affect gut microbiota in several ways, influencing bacterial composition and diversity, which may contribute to adverse metabolic and gastrointestinal effects.
“Olanzapine, for example, has been shown in rodent studies to increase the abundance of Firmicutes and reduce that of Bacteroidetes, resulting in a higher Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, which is associated with weight gain and dyslipidemia,” said Segantini.
She stated that risperidone increased the abundance of Firmicutes and decreased that of Bacteroidetes in animal models, correlating with weight gain and reduced basal metabolic rate. “Fecal transfer from risperidone-treated mice to naive mice resulted in decreased metabolic rate, suggesting that the gut microbiota would mediate these effects.”
Treatment with aripiprazole increased microbial diversity and the abundance of Clostridium, Peptoclostridium, Intestinibacter, and Christensenellaceae, in addition to promoting increased intestinal permeability in animal models.
“Therefore, the use of these medications can lead to metabolic changes, such as weight gain, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. This is due to a decrease in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are important for maintaining the integrity of the intestinal barrier. Another change frequently observed in clinical practice is constipation induced by these medications. This functional change can also generate changes in the intestinal microbiota,” she said.
Oral antidiabetic agents: Oral antidiabetic agents influence the intestinal microbiota in different ways, depending on the therapeutic class. However, not all drug interactions in the microbiome are harmful. Liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria associated with metabolism.
“Exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist, has varied effects and can increase both beneficial and inflammatory bacteria,” explained Álvaro Delgado, MD, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz in São Paulo, Brazil.
“In humans, an increase in bacteria such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii has been observed, with positive effects. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impacts,” he said, and that, in animal models, these changes caused by GLP-1 agonists are linked to metabolic changes, such as greater glucose tolerance.
Metformin has been linked to increased abundance of A muciniphila, a beneficial bacterium that degrades mucin and produces short-chain fatty acids. “These bacteria are associated with improved insulin sensitivity and reduced inflammation,” he said.
Segantini stated that studies in mice have shown that vildagliptin also plays a positive role in altering the composition of the intestinal microbiota, increasing the abundance of Lactobacillus and Roseburia, and reducing Oscillibacter. “This same beneficial effect is seen with the use of sitagliptin,” she said.
Studies in animal models have also indicated that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin increase the populations of short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, such as Bacteroides and Odoribacter, and reduce the populations of lipopolysaccharide-producing bacteria, such as Oscillibacter.
“There are still not many studies regarding the use of sulfonylureas on the intestinal microbiota, so their action on the microbiota is still controversial,” said Segantini.
Antivirals: Antiviral treatment can influence gut microbiota in complex ways, depending on the type of infection and medication used.
“Although many studies focus on the effects of viral infection on the microbiota, there is evidence that antiviral treatment can also restore the healthy composition of the microbiota, promoting additional benefits to gut and immune health,” said Segantini.
In mice with chronic hepatitis B, entecavir restored the alpha diversity of the gut microbiota, which was reduced due to infection. In addition, the recovery of beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia and Blautia, was observed, which was associated with the protection of the intestinal barrier and reduction of hepatic inflammation.
Studies have indicated that tenofovir may aid in the recovery of intestinal dysbiosis induced by chronic hepatitis B virus infection and promote the restoration of a healthy microbial composition.
“Specifically, an increase in Collinsella and Bifidobacterium, bacteria associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids and modulation of the immune response, was observed,” said Segantini.
The use of antiretrovirals, such as lopinavir and ritonavir, has been associated with changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota in patients living with HIV.
“A decrease in Lachnospira, Butyricicoccus, Oscillospira, and Prevotella, bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids that are important in intestinal health and in modulating the immune response, was observed.”
Antifungals: As a side effect, antifungals also eliminate commensal fungi, which “share intestinal niches with microbiota bacteria, balancing their immunological functions. When modified, they culminate in dysbiosis, worsening of inflammatory pathologies — such as colitis and allergic diseases — and can increase bacterial translocation,” said Segantini.
For example, fluconazole reduces the abundance of Candida spp. while promoting the growth of fungi such as Aspergillus, Wallemia, and Epicoccum.
“A relative increase in Firmicutes and Proteobacteria and a decrease in Bacteroidetes, Deferribacteres, Patescibacteria, and Tenericutes were also observed,” she explained.
Anthelmintics: These also affect the intestinal bacterial and fungal microbiota and alter the modulation of the immune response, in addition to having specific effects depending on the type of drug used.
Clinical Advice
Symptoms of dysbiosis include abdominal distension, flatulence, constipation or diarrhea, pain, fatigue, and mood swings. “The diagnosis is made based on the clinical picture, since tests such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, which indicate metabolites of bacteria associated with dysbiosis, specific stool tests, and microbiota mapping with GI-MAP [Gastrointestinal Microbial Assay Plus], for example, are expensive, difficult to access, and often inconclusive for diagnosis and for assessing the cause of the microbiota alteration,” explained Fernando Seefelder Flaquer, MD, a gastroenterologist at Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital in São Paulo.
When caused by medication, dysbiosis tends to be reversed naturally after discontinuation of the drug. “However, in medications with a high chance of altering the microbiota, probiotics can be used as prevention,” said Flaquer.
“To avoid problems, it is important to use antibiotics with caution and prefer, when possible, those with a reduced spectrum,” advised Delgado.
“Supplementation with probiotics and prebiotics can help maintain the balance of the microbiota, but it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as its indications are still restricted at present.”
Currently, dysbiosis management relies on nutritional support and lifestyle modifications. “Physical exercise, management of psychological changes, and use of probiotics and prebiotics. In specific cases, individualized treatment may even require the administration of some types of antibiotics,” explained Segantini.
Although fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been widely discussed and increasingly studied, it should still be approached with caution. While promising, FMT remains experimental for most conditions, and its use outside research settings should be carefully considered, particularly in patients who are immunocompromised or have compromised intestinal barriers.
“Currently, the treatment has stood out as promising for cases of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, being the only consolidated clinical indication,” said Segantini.
Science Hype
The interest in gut microbiome research has undoubtedly driven important scientific advances, but it also risks exaggeration. While the field holds enormous promise, much of the research remains in its early stages.
“The indiscriminate use of probiotics and reliance on microbiota analysis tests for personalized probiotic prescriptions are growing concerns,” Delgado warned. “We need to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical application. When that translation happens, it could revolutionize care for many diseases.”
Flaquer emphasized a broader issue: “There has been an overvaluation of dysbiosis and microbiota-focused treatments as cure-alls for a wide range of conditions — often subjective or lacking solid scientific correlation — such as depression, anxiety, fatigue, cancer, and even autism.”
With ongoing advances in microbiome research, understanding the impact of this complex ecosystem on human health has become essential across all medical specialties. In pediatrics, for instance, microbiota plays a critical role in immune and metabolic development, particularly in preventing conditions such as allergies and obesity.
In digestive surgery, preoperative use of probiotics has been shown to reduce complications and enhance postoperative recovery. Neurological research has highlighted the gut-brain axis as a potential factor in the development of neurodegenerative diseases. In gynecology, regulating the vaginal microbiota is key to preventing infections and complications during pregnancy.
“Given the connections between the microbiota and both intestinal and systemic diseases, every medical specialist should understand how it relates to the conditions they treat daily,” concluded Flaquer.
This story was translated from Medscape’s Portuguese edition.
Effective ways to combat harmful viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasitic worms have driven major advances in medicine and contributed to a significant increase in human life expectancy over the past century. However, as knowledge about the role of these microorganisms in promoting and maintaining health deepens, there is a need for a new look at the impact of these treatments.
The list of drugs that can directly alter the gut microbiota is long. In addition to antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anthelmintics, proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), laxatives, oral antidiabetics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, statins, chemotherapeutics, and immunosuppressants can trigger dysbiosis.
A 2020 study published in Nature Communications, which analyzed the impact of common medications on the composition and metabolic function of the gut bacteria, showed that , most notably antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors, laxatives, and metformin.
“There are still no protocols aimed at preserving the microbiota during pharmacological treatment. Future research should identify biomarkers of drug-induced dysbiosis and potentially adapt live biotherapeutics to counteract it,” said Maria Júlia Segantini, MD, a coloproctologist at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Known Facts
Antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and anthelmintics eliminate pathogens but can also disrupt the microbiota across the gut, skin, mouth, lungs, and genitourinary tract.
“This ecosystem is part of the innate immune system and helps to balance inflammation and homeostasis. Loss of microbial diversity alters interspecies interactions and changes nutrient availability, which can undermine the ability to fend off pathogens,” said Segantini, noting the role of microbiota in vitamin K and B-complex production.
“The microbiome may lose its ability to prevent pathogens from taking hold. This is due to the loss of microbial diversity, changes in interactions between species, and the availability of nutrients,” she added.
Antibiotics, as is well known, eliminate bacterial species indiscriminately, reduce the presence of beneficial bacteria in the gut, and, therefore, favor the growth of opportunistic pathogenic microorganisms. However, in addition to their direct effects on microorganisms, different medications can alter the intestinal microbiota through various mechanisms linked to their specific actions. Here are some examples:
Proton pump inhibitors: These can facilitate the translocation of bacteria from the mouth to the intestine and affect the metabolic functions of the intestinal microbiota. “In users of these medications, there may be an enrichment of pathways related to carbohydrate metabolism, such as glycolysis and pyruvate metabolism, indicating possible changes in intestinal metabolism,” Segantini explained.
NSAIDs: NSAIDs can modify the function and composition of the intestinal microbiota, favor the growth of pathogenic species, and reduce the diversity of preexisting bacteria by reducing the presence of beneficial commensal bacteria, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. “This is due to changes in the permeability of the intestinal wall, due to the inhibition of prostaglandins that help maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier, enteropathy induced by NSAIDs, and drug interactions,” said Segantini.
Laxatives: Accelerated intestinal transit using laxatives impairs the quality of the microbiota and alters bile acid. Osmotic agents, such as lactulose and polyethylene glycol, may decrease resistance to infection.
“Studies in animal models indicate that polyethylene glycol can increase the proportion of Bacteroides and reduce the abundance of Bacteroidales bacteria, with lasting repercussions on the intestinal microbiota. Stimulant laxatives, in addition to causing an acceleration of the evacuation flow, can lead to a decrease in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are important for intestinal health,” Segantini explained.
Chemotherapeutics: Chemotherapeutic agents can significantly influence the intestinal microbiota and affect its composition, diversity, and functionality, which in turn can affect the efficacy of treatment and the occurrence of adverse effects. “5-fluorouracil led to a decrease in the abundance of beneficial anaerobic genera, such as Blautia, and an increase in opportunistic pathogens, such as Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli, during chemotherapy. In addition, it can lead to an increase in the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria while reducing Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. These changes can affect the function of the intestinal barrier and the immune response. Other problems related to chemotherapy-induced dysbiosis are the adverse effects themselves, such as diarrhea and mucositis,” said Segantini.
Statins: Animal studies suggest that treatment with statins, including atorvastatin, may alter the composition of the gut microbiota. “These changes include the reduction of beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia muciniphila, and the increase in intestinal pathogens, resulting in intestinal dysbiosis. The use of statins can affect the diversity of the intestinal microbiota, although the results vary according to the type of statin and the clinical context.”
“Statins can activate intestinal nuclear receptors, such as pregnane X receptors, which modulate the expression of genes involved in bile metabolism and the inflammatory response. This activation can contribute to changes in the intestinal microbiota and associated metabolic processes. Although statins play a fundamental role in reducing cardiovascular risk, their interactions with the intestinal microbiota can influence the efficacy of treatment and the profile of adverse effects,” said Segantini.
Immunosuppressants: The use of immunosuppressants, such as corticosteroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate, has been associated with changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. “Immunosuppressant-induced dysbiosis can compromise the intestinal barrier, increase permeability, and facilitate bacterial translocation. This can result in opportunistic infections by pathogens and post-transplant complications, such as graft rejection and post-transplant diabetes,” Segantini stated.
“Alteration of the gut microbiota by immunosuppressants may influence the host’s immune response. For example, tacrolimus has been associated with an increase in the abundance of Allobaculum, Bacteroides, and Lactobacillus, in addition to elevated levels of regulatory T cells in the colonic mucosa and circulation, suggesting a role in modulating gut immunity,” she said.
Antipsychotics: Antipsychotics can affect gut microbiota in several ways, influencing bacterial composition and diversity, which may contribute to adverse metabolic and gastrointestinal effects.
“Olanzapine, for example, has been shown in rodent studies to increase the abundance of Firmicutes and reduce that of Bacteroidetes, resulting in a higher Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, which is associated with weight gain and dyslipidemia,” said Segantini.
She stated that risperidone increased the abundance of Firmicutes and decreased that of Bacteroidetes in animal models, correlating with weight gain and reduced basal metabolic rate. “Fecal transfer from risperidone-treated mice to naive mice resulted in decreased metabolic rate, suggesting that the gut microbiota would mediate these effects.”
Treatment with aripiprazole increased microbial diversity and the abundance of Clostridium, Peptoclostridium, Intestinibacter, and Christensenellaceae, in addition to promoting increased intestinal permeability in animal models.
“Therefore, the use of these medications can lead to metabolic changes, such as weight gain, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. This is due to a decrease in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are important for maintaining the integrity of the intestinal barrier. Another change frequently observed in clinical practice is constipation induced by these medications. This functional change can also generate changes in the intestinal microbiota,” she said.
Oral antidiabetic agents: Oral antidiabetic agents influence the intestinal microbiota in different ways, depending on the therapeutic class. However, not all drug interactions in the microbiome are harmful. Liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria associated with metabolism.
“Exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist, has varied effects and can increase both beneficial and inflammatory bacteria,” explained Álvaro Delgado, MD, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz in São Paulo, Brazil.
“In humans, an increase in bacteria such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii has been observed, with positive effects. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impacts,” he said, and that, in animal models, these changes caused by GLP-1 agonists are linked to metabolic changes, such as greater glucose tolerance.
Metformin has been linked to increased abundance of A muciniphila, a beneficial bacterium that degrades mucin and produces short-chain fatty acids. “These bacteria are associated with improved insulin sensitivity and reduced inflammation,” he said.
Segantini stated that studies in mice have shown that vildagliptin also plays a positive role in altering the composition of the intestinal microbiota, increasing the abundance of Lactobacillus and Roseburia, and reducing Oscillibacter. “This same beneficial effect is seen with the use of sitagliptin,” she said.
Studies in animal models have also indicated that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin increase the populations of short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, such as Bacteroides and Odoribacter, and reduce the populations of lipopolysaccharide-producing bacteria, such as Oscillibacter.
“There are still not many studies regarding the use of sulfonylureas on the intestinal microbiota, so their action on the microbiota is still controversial,” said Segantini.
Antivirals: Antiviral treatment can influence gut microbiota in complex ways, depending on the type of infection and medication used.
“Although many studies focus on the effects of viral infection on the microbiota, there is evidence that antiviral treatment can also restore the healthy composition of the microbiota, promoting additional benefits to gut and immune health,” said Segantini.
In mice with chronic hepatitis B, entecavir restored the alpha diversity of the gut microbiota, which was reduced due to infection. In addition, the recovery of beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia and Blautia, was observed, which was associated with the protection of the intestinal barrier and reduction of hepatic inflammation.
Studies have indicated that tenofovir may aid in the recovery of intestinal dysbiosis induced by chronic hepatitis B virus infection and promote the restoration of a healthy microbial composition.
“Specifically, an increase in Collinsella and Bifidobacterium, bacteria associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids and modulation of the immune response, was observed,” said Segantini.
The use of antiretrovirals, such as lopinavir and ritonavir, has been associated with changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota in patients living with HIV.
“A decrease in Lachnospira, Butyricicoccus, Oscillospira, and Prevotella, bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids that are important in intestinal health and in modulating the immune response, was observed.”
Antifungals: As a side effect, antifungals also eliminate commensal fungi, which “share intestinal niches with microbiota bacteria, balancing their immunological functions. When modified, they culminate in dysbiosis, worsening of inflammatory pathologies — such as colitis and allergic diseases — and can increase bacterial translocation,” said Segantini.
For example, fluconazole reduces the abundance of Candida spp. while promoting the growth of fungi such as Aspergillus, Wallemia, and Epicoccum.
“A relative increase in Firmicutes and Proteobacteria and a decrease in Bacteroidetes, Deferribacteres, Patescibacteria, and Tenericutes were also observed,” she explained.
Anthelmintics: These also affect the intestinal bacterial and fungal microbiota and alter the modulation of the immune response, in addition to having specific effects depending on the type of drug used.
Clinical Advice
Symptoms of dysbiosis include abdominal distension, flatulence, constipation or diarrhea, pain, fatigue, and mood swings. “The diagnosis is made based on the clinical picture, since tests such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, which indicate metabolites of bacteria associated with dysbiosis, specific stool tests, and microbiota mapping with GI-MAP [Gastrointestinal Microbial Assay Plus], for example, are expensive, difficult to access, and often inconclusive for diagnosis and for assessing the cause of the microbiota alteration,” explained Fernando Seefelder Flaquer, MD, a gastroenterologist at Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital in São Paulo.
When caused by medication, dysbiosis tends to be reversed naturally after discontinuation of the drug. “However, in medications with a high chance of altering the microbiota, probiotics can be used as prevention,” said Flaquer.
“To avoid problems, it is important to use antibiotics with caution and prefer, when possible, those with a reduced spectrum,” advised Delgado.
“Supplementation with probiotics and prebiotics can help maintain the balance of the microbiota, but it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as its indications are still restricted at present.”
Currently, dysbiosis management relies on nutritional support and lifestyle modifications. “Physical exercise, management of psychological changes, and use of probiotics and prebiotics. In specific cases, individualized treatment may even require the administration of some types of antibiotics,” explained Segantini.
Although fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been widely discussed and increasingly studied, it should still be approached with caution. While promising, FMT remains experimental for most conditions, and its use outside research settings should be carefully considered, particularly in patients who are immunocompromised or have compromised intestinal barriers.
“Currently, the treatment has stood out as promising for cases of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, being the only consolidated clinical indication,” said Segantini.
Science Hype
The interest in gut microbiome research has undoubtedly driven important scientific advances, but it also risks exaggeration. While the field holds enormous promise, much of the research remains in its early stages.
“The indiscriminate use of probiotics and reliance on microbiota analysis tests for personalized probiotic prescriptions are growing concerns,” Delgado warned. “We need to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical application. When that translation happens, it could revolutionize care for many diseases.”
Flaquer emphasized a broader issue: “There has been an overvaluation of dysbiosis and microbiota-focused treatments as cure-alls for a wide range of conditions — often subjective or lacking solid scientific correlation — such as depression, anxiety, fatigue, cancer, and even autism.”
With ongoing advances in microbiome research, understanding the impact of this complex ecosystem on human health has become essential across all medical specialties. In pediatrics, for instance, microbiota plays a critical role in immune and metabolic development, particularly in preventing conditions such as allergies and obesity.
In digestive surgery, preoperative use of probiotics has been shown to reduce complications and enhance postoperative recovery. Neurological research has highlighted the gut-brain axis as a potential factor in the development of neurodegenerative diseases. In gynecology, regulating the vaginal microbiota is key to preventing infections and complications during pregnancy.
“Given the connections between the microbiota and both intestinal and systemic diseases, every medical specialist should understand how it relates to the conditions they treat daily,” concluded Flaquer.
This story was translated from Medscape’s Portuguese edition.
Effective ways to combat harmful viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasitic worms have driven major advances in medicine and contributed to a significant increase in human life expectancy over the past century. However, as knowledge about the role of these microorganisms in promoting and maintaining health deepens, there is a need for a new look at the impact of these treatments.
The list of drugs that can directly alter the gut microbiota is long. In addition to antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, anthelmintics, proton pump inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), laxatives, oral antidiabetics, antidepressants, antipsychotics, statins, chemotherapeutics, and immunosuppressants can trigger dysbiosis.
A 2020 study published in Nature Communications, which analyzed the impact of common medications on the composition and metabolic function of the gut bacteria, showed that , most notably antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors, laxatives, and metformin.
“There are still no protocols aimed at preserving the microbiota during pharmacological treatment. Future research should identify biomarkers of drug-induced dysbiosis and potentially adapt live biotherapeutics to counteract it,” said Maria Júlia Segantini, MD, a coloproctologist at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Known Facts
Antibiotics, antivirals, antifungals, and anthelmintics eliminate pathogens but can also disrupt the microbiota across the gut, skin, mouth, lungs, and genitourinary tract.
“This ecosystem is part of the innate immune system and helps to balance inflammation and homeostasis. Loss of microbial diversity alters interspecies interactions and changes nutrient availability, which can undermine the ability to fend off pathogens,” said Segantini, noting the role of microbiota in vitamin K and B-complex production.
“The microbiome may lose its ability to prevent pathogens from taking hold. This is due to the loss of microbial diversity, changes in interactions between species, and the availability of nutrients,” she added.
Antibiotics, as is well known, eliminate bacterial species indiscriminately, reduce the presence of beneficial bacteria in the gut, and, therefore, favor the growth of opportunistic pathogenic microorganisms. However, in addition to their direct effects on microorganisms, different medications can alter the intestinal microbiota through various mechanisms linked to their specific actions. Here are some examples:
Proton pump inhibitors: These can facilitate the translocation of bacteria from the mouth to the intestine and affect the metabolic functions of the intestinal microbiota. “In users of these medications, there may be an enrichment of pathways related to carbohydrate metabolism, such as glycolysis and pyruvate metabolism, indicating possible changes in intestinal metabolism,” Segantini explained.
NSAIDs: NSAIDs can modify the function and composition of the intestinal microbiota, favor the growth of pathogenic species, and reduce the diversity of preexisting bacteria by reducing the presence of beneficial commensal bacteria, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. “This is due to changes in the permeability of the intestinal wall, due to the inhibition of prostaglandins that help maintain the integrity of the intestinal barrier, enteropathy induced by NSAIDs, and drug interactions,” said Segantini.
Laxatives: Accelerated intestinal transit using laxatives impairs the quality of the microbiota and alters bile acid. Osmotic agents, such as lactulose and polyethylene glycol, may decrease resistance to infection.
“Studies in animal models indicate that polyethylene glycol can increase the proportion of Bacteroides and reduce the abundance of Bacteroidales bacteria, with lasting repercussions on the intestinal microbiota. Stimulant laxatives, in addition to causing an acceleration of the evacuation flow, can lead to a decrease in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are important for intestinal health,” Segantini explained.
Chemotherapeutics: Chemotherapeutic agents can significantly influence the intestinal microbiota and affect its composition, diversity, and functionality, which in turn can affect the efficacy of treatment and the occurrence of adverse effects. “5-fluorouracil led to a decrease in the abundance of beneficial anaerobic genera, such as Blautia, and an increase in opportunistic pathogens, such as Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli, during chemotherapy. In addition, it can lead to an increase in the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria while reducing Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. These changes can affect the function of the intestinal barrier and the immune response. Other problems related to chemotherapy-induced dysbiosis are the adverse effects themselves, such as diarrhea and mucositis,” said Segantini.
Statins: Animal studies suggest that treatment with statins, including atorvastatin, may alter the composition of the gut microbiota. “These changes include the reduction of beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia muciniphila, and the increase in intestinal pathogens, resulting in intestinal dysbiosis. The use of statins can affect the diversity of the intestinal microbiota, although the results vary according to the type of statin and the clinical context.”
“Statins can activate intestinal nuclear receptors, such as pregnane X receptors, which modulate the expression of genes involved in bile metabolism and the inflammatory response. This activation can contribute to changes in the intestinal microbiota and associated metabolic processes. Although statins play a fundamental role in reducing cardiovascular risk, their interactions with the intestinal microbiota can influence the efficacy of treatment and the profile of adverse effects,” said Segantini.
Immunosuppressants: The use of immunosuppressants, such as corticosteroids, tacrolimus, and mycophenolate, has been associated with changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. “Immunosuppressant-induced dysbiosis can compromise the intestinal barrier, increase permeability, and facilitate bacterial translocation. This can result in opportunistic infections by pathogens and post-transplant complications, such as graft rejection and post-transplant diabetes,” Segantini stated.
“Alteration of the gut microbiota by immunosuppressants may influence the host’s immune response. For example, tacrolimus has been associated with an increase in the abundance of Allobaculum, Bacteroides, and Lactobacillus, in addition to elevated levels of regulatory T cells in the colonic mucosa and circulation, suggesting a role in modulating gut immunity,” she said.
Antipsychotics: Antipsychotics can affect gut microbiota in several ways, influencing bacterial composition and diversity, which may contribute to adverse metabolic and gastrointestinal effects.
“Olanzapine, for example, has been shown in rodent studies to increase the abundance of Firmicutes and reduce that of Bacteroidetes, resulting in a higher Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, which is associated with weight gain and dyslipidemia,” said Segantini.
She stated that risperidone increased the abundance of Firmicutes and decreased that of Bacteroidetes in animal models, correlating with weight gain and reduced basal metabolic rate. “Fecal transfer from risperidone-treated mice to naive mice resulted in decreased metabolic rate, suggesting that the gut microbiota would mediate these effects.”
Treatment with aripiprazole increased microbial diversity and the abundance of Clostridium, Peptoclostridium, Intestinibacter, and Christensenellaceae, in addition to promoting increased intestinal permeability in animal models.
“Therefore, the use of these medications can lead to metabolic changes, such as weight gain, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. This is due to a decrease in the production of short-chain fatty acids, which are important for maintaining the integrity of the intestinal barrier. Another change frequently observed in clinical practice is constipation induced by these medications. This functional change can also generate changes in the intestinal microbiota,” she said.
Oral antidiabetic agents: Oral antidiabetic agents influence the intestinal microbiota in different ways, depending on the therapeutic class. However, not all drug interactions in the microbiome are harmful. Liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria associated with metabolism.
“Exenatide, another GLP-1 agonist, has varied effects and can increase both beneficial and inflammatory bacteria,” explained Álvaro Delgado, MD, a gastroenterologist at Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz in São Paulo, Brazil.
“In humans, an increase in bacteria such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii has been observed, with positive effects. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impacts,” he said, and that, in animal models, these changes caused by GLP-1 agonists are linked to metabolic changes, such as greater glucose tolerance.
Metformin has been linked to increased abundance of A muciniphila, a beneficial bacterium that degrades mucin and produces short-chain fatty acids. “These bacteria are associated with improved insulin sensitivity and reduced inflammation,” he said.
Segantini stated that studies in mice have shown that vildagliptin also plays a positive role in altering the composition of the intestinal microbiota, increasing the abundance of Lactobacillus and Roseburia, and reducing Oscillibacter. “This same beneficial effect is seen with the use of sitagliptin,” she said.
Studies in animal models have also indicated that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin increase the populations of short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria, such as Bacteroides and Odoribacter, and reduce the populations of lipopolysaccharide-producing bacteria, such as Oscillibacter.
“There are still not many studies regarding the use of sulfonylureas on the intestinal microbiota, so their action on the microbiota is still controversial,” said Segantini.
Antivirals: Antiviral treatment can influence gut microbiota in complex ways, depending on the type of infection and medication used.
“Although many studies focus on the effects of viral infection on the microbiota, there is evidence that antiviral treatment can also restore the healthy composition of the microbiota, promoting additional benefits to gut and immune health,” said Segantini.
In mice with chronic hepatitis B, entecavir restored the alpha diversity of the gut microbiota, which was reduced due to infection. In addition, the recovery of beneficial bacteria, such as Akkermansia and Blautia, was observed, which was associated with the protection of the intestinal barrier and reduction of hepatic inflammation.
Studies have indicated that tenofovir may aid in the recovery of intestinal dysbiosis induced by chronic hepatitis B virus infection and promote the restoration of a healthy microbial composition.
“Specifically, an increase in Collinsella and Bifidobacterium, bacteria associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids and modulation of the immune response, was observed,” said Segantini.
The use of antiretrovirals, such as lopinavir and ritonavir, has been associated with changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota in patients living with HIV.
“A decrease in Lachnospira, Butyricicoccus, Oscillospira, and Prevotella, bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids that are important in intestinal health and in modulating the immune response, was observed.”
Antifungals: As a side effect, antifungals also eliminate commensal fungi, which “share intestinal niches with microbiota bacteria, balancing their immunological functions. When modified, they culminate in dysbiosis, worsening of inflammatory pathologies — such as colitis and allergic diseases — and can increase bacterial translocation,” said Segantini.
For example, fluconazole reduces the abundance of Candida spp. while promoting the growth of fungi such as Aspergillus, Wallemia, and Epicoccum.
“A relative increase in Firmicutes and Proteobacteria and a decrease in Bacteroidetes, Deferribacteres, Patescibacteria, and Tenericutes were also observed,” she explained.
Anthelmintics: These also affect the intestinal bacterial and fungal microbiota and alter the modulation of the immune response, in addition to having specific effects depending on the type of drug used.
Clinical Advice
Symptoms of dysbiosis include abdominal distension, flatulence, constipation or diarrhea, pain, fatigue, and mood swings. “The diagnosis is made based on the clinical picture, since tests such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, which indicate metabolites of bacteria associated with dysbiosis, specific stool tests, and microbiota mapping with GI-MAP [Gastrointestinal Microbial Assay Plus], for example, are expensive, difficult to access, and often inconclusive for diagnosis and for assessing the cause of the microbiota alteration,” explained Fernando Seefelder Flaquer, MD, a gastroenterologist at Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital in São Paulo.
When caused by medication, dysbiosis tends to be reversed naturally after discontinuation of the drug. “However, in medications with a high chance of altering the microbiota, probiotics can be used as prevention,” said Flaquer.
“To avoid problems, it is important to use antibiotics with caution and prefer, when possible, those with a reduced spectrum,” advised Delgado.
“Supplementation with probiotics and prebiotics can help maintain the balance of the microbiota, but it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, as its indications are still restricted at present.”
Currently, dysbiosis management relies on nutritional support and lifestyle modifications. “Physical exercise, management of psychological changes, and use of probiotics and prebiotics. In specific cases, individualized treatment may even require the administration of some types of antibiotics,” explained Segantini.
Although fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been widely discussed and increasingly studied, it should still be approached with caution. While promising, FMT remains experimental for most conditions, and its use outside research settings should be carefully considered, particularly in patients who are immunocompromised or have compromised intestinal barriers.
“Currently, the treatment has stood out as promising for cases of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, being the only consolidated clinical indication,” said Segantini.
Science Hype
The interest in gut microbiome research has undoubtedly driven important scientific advances, but it also risks exaggeration. While the field holds enormous promise, much of the research remains in its early stages.
“The indiscriminate use of probiotics and reliance on microbiota analysis tests for personalized probiotic prescriptions are growing concerns,” Delgado warned. “We need to bridge the gap between basic science and clinical application. When that translation happens, it could revolutionize care for many diseases.”
Flaquer emphasized a broader issue: “There has been an overvaluation of dysbiosis and microbiota-focused treatments as cure-alls for a wide range of conditions — often subjective or lacking solid scientific correlation — such as depression, anxiety, fatigue, cancer, and even autism.”
With ongoing advances in microbiome research, understanding the impact of this complex ecosystem on human health has become essential across all medical specialties. In pediatrics, for instance, microbiota plays a critical role in immune and metabolic development, particularly in preventing conditions such as allergies and obesity.
In digestive surgery, preoperative use of probiotics has been shown to reduce complications and enhance postoperative recovery. Neurological research has highlighted the gut-brain axis as a potential factor in the development of neurodegenerative diseases. In gynecology, regulating the vaginal microbiota is key to preventing infections and complications during pregnancy.
“Given the connections between the microbiota and both intestinal and systemic diseases, every medical specialist should understand how it relates to the conditions they treat daily,” concluded Flaquer.
This story was translated from Medscape’s Portuguese edition.
Sclerosing Mesenteritis: What GIs Need to Know About This Rare Disease
AGA has issued an updated pragmatic review on sclerosing mesenteritis (SM). Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the update evaluates available evidence for diagnosis and treatment and examines opportunities for future research in SM, previously known by such names as misty mesentery, mesenteric panniculitis, and inflammatory pseudotumor.
Led by Mark T. Worthington, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, an expert AGA panel described SM as an uncommon benign idiopathic autoimmune disease of the mesenteric fat. Although of poorly understood etiology, gastroenterologists need to be prepared to diagnose it.
“CT radiologists increasingly are reporting SM and related lesions, such as misty mesentery,” Worthington told GI & Hepatology News. “We are also seeing new SM cases caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment, and the oncologists ask us to manage this because it interferes with the treatment of the underlying malignancy. Those are often readily treated because we catch them so early.” Metabolic syndrome and associated conditions increase the risk for SM, as does aging.
The recent changes are intended to help clinicians predict disease activity and the need for other testing or treatment. “For instance, most cases are indolent and do not require aggressive treatment — often no treatment at all — but for those that are aggressive, we want the clinician to be able to identify those and make sure the treatment is appropriate. The aggressive cases may warrant tertiary referral,” Worthington said. “A secondary cancer is a possibility in this condition, so drawing from the SM radiology studies, we try to help the clinician decide who needs other testing, such as PET-CT or biopsy, and who can be monitored.”
As many as 60% of cases are asymptomatic, requiring no treatment. Abdominal pain is the most frequent symptom and its location on clinical examination should correspond to the SM lesion on imaging. Treatment involves anti-inflammatory medications tailored to disease severity and clinical response.
No biopsy is not necessary if the lesion meets three of the five CT criteria reported by B. Coulier and has no features of more aggressive disease or malignancy. Although some have suggested that SM may be a paraneoplastic syndrome, current evidence does not support this. SM needs to be differentiated from other diagnoses such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and mesenteric fibromatosis.
“There are now CT guidelines for who actually has SM, who needs a biopsy or a PET-CT to rule-out malignancy, and who doesn’t,” said Worthington. “Radiologists do not always use the Coulier criteria for diagnosis, but often they will with encouragement. From this review, a GI clinician should be able to identify SM on CT.”
Epidemiologically, retrospective CT studies have reported a frequency of 0.6%-1.1%, the panelists noted. And while demographic data are limited, a large early case series reported that SM patients had a mean age of 55 years and more likely to be men and of White race.
Patients with SM do not have a higher prevalence of autoimmunity in general, but may have increased rates of metabolic syndrome, obesity, coronary artery disease, and urolithiasis, the panelists noted.
The update allows room for differences in clinical judgment. “For instance, a longer or more frequent CT surveillance interval can be justified depending on the patient’s findings, and no one should feel locked in by these recommendations,” Worthington said.
Medical Therapy
Although there is no surgical cure, pharmacologic options are many. These include prednisone, tamoxifen, colchicine, azathioprine, thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and methotrexate, as well as the biologics rituximab, infliximab and ustekinumab. Current corticosteroid-based therapies often require months to achieve a clinical response, however.
Bowel obstruction is managed nonoperatively when feasible, but medically refractory disease may require surgical bypass.
Offering his perspective on the guidance but not involved in its formulation, Gastroenterologist Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “The most useful component of the practical review is the algorithm for diagnosis and determination when biopsy or follow-up imaging is reasonable in the absence of evidence.” He stressed that the recommendations are pragmatic rather than evidence-based “as there are no controlled trials and the presentation is heterogeneous.”
Hanauer added that none of the recommended treatments have been shown to impact reduction on imaging. “Hence, all of the treatments are empiric without biological or imaging endpoints.”
In his experience, patients with inflammatory features are the best candidates for immune-directed therapies as reduction in inflammatory markers is a potential endpoint, although no therapies have demonstrated an effect on imaging or progression. “As an IBD doctor, I favor steroids and azathioprine or anti-TNF directed therapy, but again, there is no evidence beyond reports of symptomatic improvement.”
Worthington and colleagues agreed that treatment protocols have developed empirically. “Future investigation for symptomatic SM should focus on the nature of the inflammatory response, including causative cytokines and other proinflammatory mediators, the goal being targeted therapy with fewer side effects and a more rapid clinical response,” they wrote.
Currently, said Worthington, the biggest gaps remain in treatment. “Even the best studies are small and anecdotal, and we do not know the cytokine or other proinflammatory mediators.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA has issued an updated pragmatic review on sclerosing mesenteritis (SM). Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the update evaluates available evidence for diagnosis and treatment and examines opportunities for future research in SM, previously known by such names as misty mesentery, mesenteric panniculitis, and inflammatory pseudotumor.
Led by Mark T. Worthington, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, an expert AGA panel described SM as an uncommon benign idiopathic autoimmune disease of the mesenteric fat. Although of poorly understood etiology, gastroenterologists need to be prepared to diagnose it.
“CT radiologists increasingly are reporting SM and related lesions, such as misty mesentery,” Worthington told GI & Hepatology News. “We are also seeing new SM cases caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment, and the oncologists ask us to manage this because it interferes with the treatment of the underlying malignancy. Those are often readily treated because we catch them so early.” Metabolic syndrome and associated conditions increase the risk for SM, as does aging.
The recent changes are intended to help clinicians predict disease activity and the need for other testing or treatment. “For instance, most cases are indolent and do not require aggressive treatment — often no treatment at all — but for those that are aggressive, we want the clinician to be able to identify those and make sure the treatment is appropriate. The aggressive cases may warrant tertiary referral,” Worthington said. “A secondary cancer is a possibility in this condition, so drawing from the SM radiology studies, we try to help the clinician decide who needs other testing, such as PET-CT or biopsy, and who can be monitored.”
As many as 60% of cases are asymptomatic, requiring no treatment. Abdominal pain is the most frequent symptom and its location on clinical examination should correspond to the SM lesion on imaging. Treatment involves anti-inflammatory medications tailored to disease severity and clinical response.
No biopsy is not necessary if the lesion meets three of the five CT criteria reported by B. Coulier and has no features of more aggressive disease or malignancy. Although some have suggested that SM may be a paraneoplastic syndrome, current evidence does not support this. SM needs to be differentiated from other diagnoses such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and mesenteric fibromatosis.
“There are now CT guidelines for who actually has SM, who needs a biopsy or a PET-CT to rule-out malignancy, and who doesn’t,” said Worthington. “Radiologists do not always use the Coulier criteria for diagnosis, but often they will with encouragement. From this review, a GI clinician should be able to identify SM on CT.”
Epidemiologically, retrospective CT studies have reported a frequency of 0.6%-1.1%, the panelists noted. And while demographic data are limited, a large early case series reported that SM patients had a mean age of 55 years and more likely to be men and of White race.
Patients with SM do not have a higher prevalence of autoimmunity in general, but may have increased rates of metabolic syndrome, obesity, coronary artery disease, and urolithiasis, the panelists noted.
The update allows room for differences in clinical judgment. “For instance, a longer or more frequent CT surveillance interval can be justified depending on the patient’s findings, and no one should feel locked in by these recommendations,” Worthington said.
Medical Therapy
Although there is no surgical cure, pharmacologic options are many. These include prednisone, tamoxifen, colchicine, azathioprine, thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and methotrexate, as well as the biologics rituximab, infliximab and ustekinumab. Current corticosteroid-based therapies often require months to achieve a clinical response, however.
Bowel obstruction is managed nonoperatively when feasible, but medically refractory disease may require surgical bypass.
Offering his perspective on the guidance but not involved in its formulation, Gastroenterologist Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “The most useful component of the practical review is the algorithm for diagnosis and determination when biopsy or follow-up imaging is reasonable in the absence of evidence.” He stressed that the recommendations are pragmatic rather than evidence-based “as there are no controlled trials and the presentation is heterogeneous.”
Hanauer added that none of the recommended treatments have been shown to impact reduction on imaging. “Hence, all of the treatments are empiric without biological or imaging endpoints.”
In his experience, patients with inflammatory features are the best candidates for immune-directed therapies as reduction in inflammatory markers is a potential endpoint, although no therapies have demonstrated an effect on imaging or progression. “As an IBD doctor, I favor steroids and azathioprine or anti-TNF directed therapy, but again, there is no evidence beyond reports of symptomatic improvement.”
Worthington and colleagues agreed that treatment protocols have developed empirically. “Future investigation for symptomatic SM should focus on the nature of the inflammatory response, including causative cytokines and other proinflammatory mediators, the goal being targeted therapy with fewer side effects and a more rapid clinical response,” they wrote.
Currently, said Worthington, the biggest gaps remain in treatment. “Even the best studies are small and anecdotal, and we do not know the cytokine or other proinflammatory mediators.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA has issued an updated pragmatic review on sclerosing mesenteritis (SM). Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the update evaluates available evidence for diagnosis and treatment and examines opportunities for future research in SM, previously known by such names as misty mesentery, mesenteric panniculitis, and inflammatory pseudotumor.
Led by Mark T. Worthington, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, an expert AGA panel described SM as an uncommon benign idiopathic autoimmune disease of the mesenteric fat. Although of poorly understood etiology, gastroenterologists need to be prepared to diagnose it.
“CT radiologists increasingly are reporting SM and related lesions, such as misty mesentery,” Worthington told GI & Hepatology News. “We are also seeing new SM cases caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment, and the oncologists ask us to manage this because it interferes with the treatment of the underlying malignancy. Those are often readily treated because we catch them so early.” Metabolic syndrome and associated conditions increase the risk for SM, as does aging.
The recent changes are intended to help clinicians predict disease activity and the need for other testing or treatment. “For instance, most cases are indolent and do not require aggressive treatment — often no treatment at all — but for those that are aggressive, we want the clinician to be able to identify those and make sure the treatment is appropriate. The aggressive cases may warrant tertiary referral,” Worthington said. “A secondary cancer is a possibility in this condition, so drawing from the SM radiology studies, we try to help the clinician decide who needs other testing, such as PET-CT or biopsy, and who can be monitored.”
As many as 60% of cases are asymptomatic, requiring no treatment. Abdominal pain is the most frequent symptom and its location on clinical examination should correspond to the SM lesion on imaging. Treatment involves anti-inflammatory medications tailored to disease severity and clinical response.
No biopsy is not necessary if the lesion meets three of the five CT criteria reported by B. Coulier and has no features of more aggressive disease or malignancy. Although some have suggested that SM may be a paraneoplastic syndrome, current evidence does not support this. SM needs to be differentiated from other diagnoses such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and mesenteric fibromatosis.
“There are now CT guidelines for who actually has SM, who needs a biopsy or a PET-CT to rule-out malignancy, and who doesn’t,” said Worthington. “Radiologists do not always use the Coulier criteria for diagnosis, but often they will with encouragement. From this review, a GI clinician should be able to identify SM on CT.”
Epidemiologically, retrospective CT studies have reported a frequency of 0.6%-1.1%, the panelists noted. And while demographic data are limited, a large early case series reported that SM patients had a mean age of 55 years and more likely to be men and of White race.
Patients with SM do not have a higher prevalence of autoimmunity in general, but may have increased rates of metabolic syndrome, obesity, coronary artery disease, and urolithiasis, the panelists noted.
The update allows room for differences in clinical judgment. “For instance, a longer or more frequent CT surveillance interval can be justified depending on the patient’s findings, and no one should feel locked in by these recommendations,” Worthington said.
Medical Therapy
Although there is no surgical cure, pharmacologic options are many. These include prednisone, tamoxifen, colchicine, azathioprine, thalidomide, cyclophosphamide, and methotrexate, as well as the biologics rituximab, infliximab and ustekinumab. Current corticosteroid-based therapies often require months to achieve a clinical response, however.
Bowel obstruction is managed nonoperatively when feasible, but medically refractory disease may require surgical bypass.
Offering his perspective on the guidance but not involved in its formulation, Gastroenterologist Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “The most useful component of the practical review is the algorithm for diagnosis and determination when biopsy or follow-up imaging is reasonable in the absence of evidence.” He stressed that the recommendations are pragmatic rather than evidence-based “as there are no controlled trials and the presentation is heterogeneous.”
Hanauer added that none of the recommended treatments have been shown to impact reduction on imaging. “Hence, all of the treatments are empiric without biological or imaging endpoints.”
In his experience, patients with inflammatory features are the best candidates for immune-directed therapies as reduction in inflammatory markers is a potential endpoint, although no therapies have demonstrated an effect on imaging or progression. “As an IBD doctor, I favor steroids and azathioprine or anti-TNF directed therapy, but again, there is no evidence beyond reports of symptomatic improvement.”
Worthington and colleagues agreed that treatment protocols have developed empirically. “Future investigation for symptomatic SM should focus on the nature of the inflammatory response, including causative cytokines and other proinflammatory mediators, the goal being targeted therapy with fewer side effects and a more rapid clinical response,” they wrote.
Currently, said Worthington, the biggest gaps remain in treatment. “Even the best studies are small and anecdotal, and we do not know the cytokine or other proinflammatory mediators.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Celiac Blood Test Eliminates Need for Eating Gluten
Think your patient may have celiac disease? The harsh reality is that current diagnostic tests require patients to consume gluten for an accurate diagnosis, which poses challenges for individuals already avoiding gluten.
A more tolerable approach appears to be on the horizon.
“This is a simple and accurate test that can provide a diagnosis within a very short time frame, without the need for patients to continue eating gluten and feeling sick, or to wait months for a gastroscopy,” Olivia Moscatelli, PhD candidate, Tye-Din Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in Gastroenterology.
Most Cases Go Undiagnosed
Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten found in wheat, rye, and barley. The only available treatment is a strict, life-long gluten-free diet.
The global prevalence of celiac disease is estimated at around 1%-2%, with 50%-80% of cases either undiagnosed or diagnosed late. That’s because the current reliable diagnosis of celiac disease requires the intake of gluten, which may deter people from seeking a diagnosis.
In earlier work, the researchers, working with Robert Anderson, MBChB, BMedSc, PhD, AGAF, now with Novoviah Pharmaceuticals, made the unexpected discovery that interleukin-2 (IL-2) spiked in the blood of people with celiac disease shortly after they ate gluten.
But would this signal be present when no gluten had been consumed?
The team developed and tested a simple whole blood assay measuring IL-2 release (WBAIL- 2) for detecting gluten-specific T cells to aid in diagnosing celiac disease.
They collected blood samples from 181 volunteers — 75 with treated celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, 13 with active untreated celiac disease, 32 with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and 61 healthy controls. The blood samples were mixed with gluten in a test tube for a day to see if the IL-2 signal appeared.
The WBAIL-2 assay demonstrated high accuracy for celiac disease, even in patients following a strict gluten-free diet.
For patients with HLA-DQ2.5+ genetics, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 95%, with lower sensitivity (56%) for patients with HLA-DQ8+ celiac disease.
The WBAIL-2 assay correlated strongly with the frequency of tetramer-positive gluten-specific CD4+ T cells used to diagnose celiac disease and monitor treatment effectiveness, and with serum IL-2 levels after gluten challenge.
The strength of the IL-2 signal correlated with the severity of a patient’s symptoms, “allowing us to predict how severely a person with celiac disease might react to gluten, without them actually having to eat it,” Moscatelli said in a news release.
“Current diagnostic practice involves a blood-based serology test followed by a confirmatory gastroscopy if positive. Both tests require the patient to eat gluten daily for 6-12 weeks prior for accurate results. We envision the new blood test (IL-2 whole blood assay) will replace the invasive gastroscopy as the confirmatory test following positive serology,” Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.
“In people already following a gluten-free diet, we propose they would have this new blood test done on two separate occasions and two positive results would be required for a celiac diagnosis. This would allow a large number of people who previously have been unable to go through the current diagnostic process to receive a diagnosis,” Moscatelli said.
Practice Changing Potential
A blood-based test that can accurately detect celiac disease without the need for a gluten challenge would be “welcome and practice changing,” said Christopher Cao, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.
“A typical ‘gluten challenge’ involves eating the equivalent of 1-2 slices of bread daily for the course of 6 weeks, and this may be incredibly difficult for patients who have already been on a gluten-free diet prior to an official celiac disease diagnosis. Inability to perform a gluten challenge limits the ability to make an accurate celiac disease diagnosis,” Cao told GI & Hepatology News.
“This study shows that gluten-stimulated interleukin release 2 assays may correlate with the presence of pathogenic gluten-specific CD4+ T cell response in celiac disease,” Cao noted.
He cautioned that “further large cohort, multicenter prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability and may be helpful in evaluating the accuracy of WBAIL-2 in non-HLA DQ2.5 genotypes.”
Other considerations prior to implementation may include reproducibility across different laboratories and overall cost effectiveness, Cao said. “Ultimately in clinic, the role of WBAIL-2 will need to be better defined within the algorithm of celiac disease testing,” he added.
The Path Ahead
The researchers plan to test the performance of the IL-2 whole blood assay in a pediatric cohort, as well as in other countries to demonstrate the reproducibility of the test. In these studies, the test will likely be performed alongside the current diagnostic tests (serology and gastroscopy), Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.
“There are some validation studies starting in other countries already as many celiac clinicians globally are interested in bringing this test to their clinical practice. I believe the plan is to have this as an approved diagnostic test for celiac disease worldwide,” she said.
Novoviah Pharmaceuticals is managing the commercialization of the test, and the plan is to get it into clinical practice in the next 2 years, Moscatelli said.
The research was supported by Coeliac Australia, Novoviah Pharmaceuticals (who provided the proprietary test for this study), Beck Family Foundation, Butterfield Family, the Veith Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Cao had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Think your patient may have celiac disease? The harsh reality is that current diagnostic tests require patients to consume gluten for an accurate diagnosis, which poses challenges for individuals already avoiding gluten.
A more tolerable approach appears to be on the horizon.
“This is a simple and accurate test that can provide a diagnosis within a very short time frame, without the need for patients to continue eating gluten and feeling sick, or to wait months for a gastroscopy,” Olivia Moscatelli, PhD candidate, Tye-Din Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in Gastroenterology.
Most Cases Go Undiagnosed
Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten found in wheat, rye, and barley. The only available treatment is a strict, life-long gluten-free diet.
The global prevalence of celiac disease is estimated at around 1%-2%, with 50%-80% of cases either undiagnosed or diagnosed late. That’s because the current reliable diagnosis of celiac disease requires the intake of gluten, which may deter people from seeking a diagnosis.
In earlier work, the researchers, working with Robert Anderson, MBChB, BMedSc, PhD, AGAF, now with Novoviah Pharmaceuticals, made the unexpected discovery that interleukin-2 (IL-2) spiked in the blood of people with celiac disease shortly after they ate gluten.
But would this signal be present when no gluten had been consumed?
The team developed and tested a simple whole blood assay measuring IL-2 release (WBAIL- 2) for detecting gluten-specific T cells to aid in diagnosing celiac disease.
They collected blood samples from 181 volunteers — 75 with treated celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, 13 with active untreated celiac disease, 32 with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and 61 healthy controls. The blood samples were mixed with gluten in a test tube for a day to see if the IL-2 signal appeared.
The WBAIL-2 assay demonstrated high accuracy for celiac disease, even in patients following a strict gluten-free diet.
For patients with HLA-DQ2.5+ genetics, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 95%, with lower sensitivity (56%) for patients with HLA-DQ8+ celiac disease.
The WBAIL-2 assay correlated strongly with the frequency of tetramer-positive gluten-specific CD4+ T cells used to diagnose celiac disease and monitor treatment effectiveness, and with serum IL-2 levels after gluten challenge.
The strength of the IL-2 signal correlated with the severity of a patient’s symptoms, “allowing us to predict how severely a person with celiac disease might react to gluten, without them actually having to eat it,” Moscatelli said in a news release.
“Current diagnostic practice involves a blood-based serology test followed by a confirmatory gastroscopy if positive. Both tests require the patient to eat gluten daily for 6-12 weeks prior for accurate results. We envision the new blood test (IL-2 whole blood assay) will replace the invasive gastroscopy as the confirmatory test following positive serology,” Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.
“In people already following a gluten-free diet, we propose they would have this new blood test done on two separate occasions and two positive results would be required for a celiac diagnosis. This would allow a large number of people who previously have been unable to go through the current diagnostic process to receive a diagnosis,” Moscatelli said.
Practice Changing Potential
A blood-based test that can accurately detect celiac disease without the need for a gluten challenge would be “welcome and practice changing,” said Christopher Cao, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.
“A typical ‘gluten challenge’ involves eating the equivalent of 1-2 slices of bread daily for the course of 6 weeks, and this may be incredibly difficult for patients who have already been on a gluten-free diet prior to an official celiac disease diagnosis. Inability to perform a gluten challenge limits the ability to make an accurate celiac disease diagnosis,” Cao told GI & Hepatology News.
“This study shows that gluten-stimulated interleukin release 2 assays may correlate with the presence of pathogenic gluten-specific CD4+ T cell response in celiac disease,” Cao noted.
He cautioned that “further large cohort, multicenter prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability and may be helpful in evaluating the accuracy of WBAIL-2 in non-HLA DQ2.5 genotypes.”
Other considerations prior to implementation may include reproducibility across different laboratories and overall cost effectiveness, Cao said. “Ultimately in clinic, the role of WBAIL-2 will need to be better defined within the algorithm of celiac disease testing,” he added.
The Path Ahead
The researchers plan to test the performance of the IL-2 whole blood assay in a pediatric cohort, as well as in other countries to demonstrate the reproducibility of the test. In these studies, the test will likely be performed alongside the current diagnostic tests (serology and gastroscopy), Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.
“There are some validation studies starting in other countries already as many celiac clinicians globally are interested in bringing this test to their clinical practice. I believe the plan is to have this as an approved diagnostic test for celiac disease worldwide,” she said.
Novoviah Pharmaceuticals is managing the commercialization of the test, and the plan is to get it into clinical practice in the next 2 years, Moscatelli said.
The research was supported by Coeliac Australia, Novoviah Pharmaceuticals (who provided the proprietary test for this study), Beck Family Foundation, Butterfield Family, the Veith Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Cao had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Think your patient may have celiac disease? The harsh reality is that current diagnostic tests require patients to consume gluten for an accurate diagnosis, which poses challenges for individuals already avoiding gluten.
A more tolerable approach appears to be on the horizon.
“This is a simple and accurate test that can provide a diagnosis within a very short time frame, without the need for patients to continue eating gluten and feeling sick, or to wait months for a gastroscopy,” Olivia Moscatelli, PhD candidate, Tye-Din Lab, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, told GI & Hepatology News.
The study was published in Gastroenterology.
Most Cases Go Undiagnosed
Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten found in wheat, rye, and barley. The only available treatment is a strict, life-long gluten-free diet.
The global prevalence of celiac disease is estimated at around 1%-2%, with 50%-80% of cases either undiagnosed or diagnosed late. That’s because the current reliable diagnosis of celiac disease requires the intake of gluten, which may deter people from seeking a diagnosis.
In earlier work, the researchers, working with Robert Anderson, MBChB, BMedSc, PhD, AGAF, now with Novoviah Pharmaceuticals, made the unexpected discovery that interleukin-2 (IL-2) spiked in the blood of people with celiac disease shortly after they ate gluten.
But would this signal be present when no gluten had been consumed?
The team developed and tested a simple whole blood assay measuring IL-2 release (WBAIL- 2) for detecting gluten-specific T cells to aid in diagnosing celiac disease.
They collected blood samples from 181 volunteers — 75 with treated celiac disease on a gluten-free diet, 13 with active untreated celiac disease, 32 with nonceliac gluten sensitivity and 61 healthy controls. The blood samples were mixed with gluten in a test tube for a day to see if the IL-2 signal appeared.
The WBAIL-2 assay demonstrated high accuracy for celiac disease, even in patients following a strict gluten-free diet.
For patients with HLA-DQ2.5+ genetics, sensitivity was 90% and specificity was 95%, with lower sensitivity (56%) for patients with HLA-DQ8+ celiac disease.
The WBAIL-2 assay correlated strongly with the frequency of tetramer-positive gluten-specific CD4+ T cells used to diagnose celiac disease and monitor treatment effectiveness, and with serum IL-2 levels after gluten challenge.
The strength of the IL-2 signal correlated with the severity of a patient’s symptoms, “allowing us to predict how severely a person with celiac disease might react to gluten, without them actually having to eat it,” Moscatelli said in a news release.
“Current diagnostic practice involves a blood-based serology test followed by a confirmatory gastroscopy if positive. Both tests require the patient to eat gluten daily for 6-12 weeks prior for accurate results. We envision the new blood test (IL-2 whole blood assay) will replace the invasive gastroscopy as the confirmatory test following positive serology,” Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.
“In people already following a gluten-free diet, we propose they would have this new blood test done on two separate occasions and two positive results would be required for a celiac diagnosis. This would allow a large number of people who previously have been unable to go through the current diagnostic process to receive a diagnosis,” Moscatelli said.
Practice Changing Potential
A blood-based test that can accurately detect celiac disease without the need for a gluten challenge would be “welcome and practice changing,” said Christopher Cao, MD, director, Celiac Disease Program, Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York City.
“A typical ‘gluten challenge’ involves eating the equivalent of 1-2 slices of bread daily for the course of 6 weeks, and this may be incredibly difficult for patients who have already been on a gluten-free diet prior to an official celiac disease diagnosis. Inability to perform a gluten challenge limits the ability to make an accurate celiac disease diagnosis,” Cao told GI & Hepatology News.
“This study shows that gluten-stimulated interleukin release 2 assays may correlate with the presence of pathogenic gluten-specific CD4+ T cell response in celiac disease,” Cao noted.
He cautioned that “further large cohort, multicenter prospective studies are needed to assess generalizability and may be helpful in evaluating the accuracy of WBAIL-2 in non-HLA DQ2.5 genotypes.”
Other considerations prior to implementation may include reproducibility across different laboratories and overall cost effectiveness, Cao said. “Ultimately in clinic, the role of WBAIL-2 will need to be better defined within the algorithm of celiac disease testing,” he added.
The Path Ahead
The researchers plan to test the performance of the IL-2 whole blood assay in a pediatric cohort, as well as in other countries to demonstrate the reproducibility of the test. In these studies, the test will likely be performed alongside the current diagnostic tests (serology and gastroscopy), Moscatelli told GI & Hepatology News.
“There are some validation studies starting in other countries already as many celiac clinicians globally are interested in bringing this test to their clinical practice. I believe the plan is to have this as an approved diagnostic test for celiac disease worldwide,” she said.
Novoviah Pharmaceuticals is managing the commercialization of the test, and the plan is to get it into clinical practice in the next 2 years, Moscatelli said.
The research was supported by Coeliac Australia, Novoviah Pharmaceuticals (who provided the proprietary test for this study), Beck Family Foundation, Butterfield Family, the Veith Foundation. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Cao had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Can Modulation of the Microbiome Improve Cancer Immunotherapy Tolerance and Efficacy?
WASHINGTON — For years, oncologist Jonathan Peled, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City have been documenting gut microbiota disruption during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and its role in frequent and potentially fatal bloodstream infections (BSIs) in the first 100 days after transplant.
, and at the Gut Microbiota for Health (GMFH) World Summit 2025, Peled shared two new findings.
In one study, his team found that sucrose can exacerbate antibiotic-induced microbiome injury in patients undergoing allo-HSCT — a finding that “raises the question of whether our dietary recommendations [for] allo-HSCT patients are correct,” said Peled, assistant attending at MSKCC, during a session on the gut microbiome and oncology.
And in another study, they found that a rationally designed probiotic formulation may help lower the incidence of bacterial BSIs. In December 2024, the probiotic formulation (SER-155, Seres Therapeutics, Inc.) was granted breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA.
With immunotherapies more broadly, researchers are increasingly looking at diet and modulation of the microbiome to improve both treatment tolerance and efficacy, experts said at the meeting convened by the AGA and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.
“Cancer patients and caregivers are asking, ‘What should I eat?’” said Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, PhD, MPH, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “They’re not just focused on side effects — they want a good outcome for their treatment, and they’re exploring a lot of dietary strategies [for which there] is not a lot of evidence.”
Clinicians are challenged by the fact that “we don’t typically collect dietary data in clinical trials of cancer drugs,” leaving them to extrapolate from evidence-based diet guidelines for cancer prevention, Daniel-MacDougall said.
But “I think that’s starting to shift,” she said, with the microbiome being increasingly recognized for its potential influences on therapeutic response and clinical trials underway looking at “a healthy dietary pattern not just for prevention but survival.”
Diet and Probiotics After allo-HSCT
The patterns of microbiota disruption during allo-HSCT — a procedure that includes antibiotic administration, chemotherapy, and sometimes irradiation — are characterized by loss of diversity and the expansion of potentially pathogenic organisms, most commonly Enterococcus, said Peled.
This has been demonstrated across transplantation centers. In a multicenter, international study published in 2020, the patterns of microbiota disruption and their impact on mortality were similar across MSK and other transplantation centers, with higher diversity of intestinal microbiota associated with lower mortality.
Other studies have shown that Enterococcus domination alone (defined arbitrarily as > 30% of fecal microbial composition) is associated with graft vs host disease and higher mortality after allo-HSCT and that intestinal domination by Proteobacteria coincides temporally with BSIs, he said.
Autologous fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been shown to largely restore the microbiota composition the patient had before antibiotic treatment and allo-HSCT, he said, making fecal sample banking and posttreatment FMT a potential approach for reconstituting the gut microbiome and improving outcomes.
But “lately we’ve been very interested in diet for modulating [harmful] patterns” in the microbiome composition, Peled said.
In the new study suggesting a role for sugar avoidance, published last year as a bioRxiv preprint, Peled and his colleagues collected real-time dietary intake data (40,702 food entries) from 173 patients hospitalized for several weeks for allo-HSCT at MSK and analyzed it alongside longitudinally collected fecal samples. They used a Bayesian mixed-effects model to identify dietary components that may correlate with microbial disruption.
“What jumped out as very predictive of a low diversity fecal sample [and expansion of Enterococcus] in the 2 days prior to collection was the interaction between antibiotics and the consumption of sweets” — foods rich in simple sugars, Peled said. The relationship between sugar and the microbiome occurred only during periods of antibiotic exposure.
“And it was particularly perplexing because the foods that fall into the ‘sweets’ category are foods we encourage people to eat clinically when they’re not feeling well and food intake drops dramatically,” he said. This includes foods like nutritional drinks or shakes, Italian ice, gelatin dessert, and sports drinks.
(In a mouse model of post-antibiotic Enterococcus expansion, Peled and his co-investigators then validated the findings and ruled out the impact of any reductions in fiber.)
In addition to possibly revising dietary recommendations for patients undergoing allo-HSCT, the findings raise the question of whether avoiding sugar intake while on antibiotics, in general, is a way to mitigate antibiotic-induced dysbiosis, he said.
To test the role of probiotics, Peled and colleagues collaborated with Seres Therapeutics on a phase 1b trial of an oral combination (SER-155) of 16 fermented strains “selected rationally,” he said, for their ability to decolonize gut pathogens, improve gut barrier function (in vitro), and reduce gut inflammation and local immune activation.
After a safety lead-in, patients were randomized to receive SER-155 (20) or placebo (14) three times — prior to transplant, upon neutrophil engraftment (with vancomycin “conditioning”), and after transplant. “The strains succeeded in grafting in the [gastrointestinal] GI tract…and some of them persisted all the way through to day 100,” Peled said.
The incidence of pathogen domination was substantially lower in the probiotic recipients compared to an MSK historical control cohort, and the incidence of BSIs was significantly lower compared to the placebo arm (10% vs 43%, respectively, representing a 77% relative risk reduction), he said.
Diet and Immunotherapy Response: Trials at MD Anderson
One of the first trials Daniel-MacDougall launched at MD Anderson on diet and the microbiome randomized 55 patients who were obese and had a history of colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps to add a cup of beans to their usual diet or to continue their usual diet without beans. There was a crossover at 8 weeks in the 16-week BE GONE trial; stool and fasting blood were collected every 4 weeks.
“Beans are a prebiotic super-house in my opinion, and they’re also something this population would avoid,” said Daniel-MacDougall, associate professor in the department of epidemiology at MD Anderson and faculty director of the Bionutrition Research Core and Research Kitchen.
“We saw a modest increase in alpha diversity [in the intervention group] and similar trends with microbiota-derived metabolites” that regressed when patients returned to their usual diet, she said. The researchers also documented decreases in proteomic biomarkers of intestinal and systemic immune and inflammatory response.
The impact of diet on cancer survival was shown in subsequent research, including an observational study published in Science in 2021 of patients with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) treatment. “Patients who consumed insufficient dietary fiber at the start of therapy tended to do worse [than those reporting sufficient fiber intake],” with significantly lower progression-free survival, Daniel-MacDougall said.
“And interestingly, when we looked at dietary fiber [with and without] probiotic use, patients who had sufficient fiber but did not take probiotics did the best,” she said. [The probiotics were not endorsed or selected by their physicians.]
Now, the researchers at MD Anderson are moving into “precision nutrition” research, Daniel-MacDougall said, with a phase 2 randomized, double-blind trial of high dietary fiber intake (a target of 50 g/d from whole foods) vs a healthy control diet (20 g/d of fiber) in patients with melanoma receiving ICB.
The study, which is underway, is a fully controlled feeding study, with all meals and snacks provided by MD Anderson and macronutrients controlled. Researchers are collecting blood, stool, and tumor tissue (if available) to answer questions about the microbiome, changes in systemic and tissue immunity, disease response and immunotherapy toxicity, and other issues.
Peled disclosed IP licensing and research support from Seres Therapeutics; consulting with Da Volterra, MaaT Pharma, and CSL Behring; and advisory/equity with Postbiotics + Research LLC and Prodigy Biosciences. Daniel-MacDougall reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — For years, oncologist Jonathan Peled, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City have been documenting gut microbiota disruption during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and its role in frequent and potentially fatal bloodstream infections (BSIs) in the first 100 days after transplant.
, and at the Gut Microbiota for Health (GMFH) World Summit 2025, Peled shared two new findings.
In one study, his team found that sucrose can exacerbate antibiotic-induced microbiome injury in patients undergoing allo-HSCT — a finding that “raises the question of whether our dietary recommendations [for] allo-HSCT patients are correct,” said Peled, assistant attending at MSKCC, during a session on the gut microbiome and oncology.
And in another study, they found that a rationally designed probiotic formulation may help lower the incidence of bacterial BSIs. In December 2024, the probiotic formulation (SER-155, Seres Therapeutics, Inc.) was granted breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA.
With immunotherapies more broadly, researchers are increasingly looking at diet and modulation of the microbiome to improve both treatment tolerance and efficacy, experts said at the meeting convened by the AGA and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.
“Cancer patients and caregivers are asking, ‘What should I eat?’” said Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, PhD, MPH, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “They’re not just focused on side effects — they want a good outcome for their treatment, and they’re exploring a lot of dietary strategies [for which there] is not a lot of evidence.”
Clinicians are challenged by the fact that “we don’t typically collect dietary data in clinical trials of cancer drugs,” leaving them to extrapolate from evidence-based diet guidelines for cancer prevention, Daniel-MacDougall said.
But “I think that’s starting to shift,” she said, with the microbiome being increasingly recognized for its potential influences on therapeutic response and clinical trials underway looking at “a healthy dietary pattern not just for prevention but survival.”
Diet and Probiotics After allo-HSCT
The patterns of microbiota disruption during allo-HSCT — a procedure that includes antibiotic administration, chemotherapy, and sometimes irradiation — are characterized by loss of diversity and the expansion of potentially pathogenic organisms, most commonly Enterococcus, said Peled.
This has been demonstrated across transplantation centers. In a multicenter, international study published in 2020, the patterns of microbiota disruption and their impact on mortality were similar across MSK and other transplantation centers, with higher diversity of intestinal microbiota associated with lower mortality.
Other studies have shown that Enterococcus domination alone (defined arbitrarily as > 30% of fecal microbial composition) is associated with graft vs host disease and higher mortality after allo-HSCT and that intestinal domination by Proteobacteria coincides temporally with BSIs, he said.
Autologous fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been shown to largely restore the microbiota composition the patient had before antibiotic treatment and allo-HSCT, he said, making fecal sample banking and posttreatment FMT a potential approach for reconstituting the gut microbiome and improving outcomes.
But “lately we’ve been very interested in diet for modulating [harmful] patterns” in the microbiome composition, Peled said.
In the new study suggesting a role for sugar avoidance, published last year as a bioRxiv preprint, Peled and his colleagues collected real-time dietary intake data (40,702 food entries) from 173 patients hospitalized for several weeks for allo-HSCT at MSK and analyzed it alongside longitudinally collected fecal samples. They used a Bayesian mixed-effects model to identify dietary components that may correlate with microbial disruption.
“What jumped out as very predictive of a low diversity fecal sample [and expansion of Enterococcus] in the 2 days prior to collection was the interaction between antibiotics and the consumption of sweets” — foods rich in simple sugars, Peled said. The relationship between sugar and the microbiome occurred only during periods of antibiotic exposure.
“And it was particularly perplexing because the foods that fall into the ‘sweets’ category are foods we encourage people to eat clinically when they’re not feeling well and food intake drops dramatically,” he said. This includes foods like nutritional drinks or shakes, Italian ice, gelatin dessert, and sports drinks.
(In a mouse model of post-antibiotic Enterococcus expansion, Peled and his co-investigators then validated the findings and ruled out the impact of any reductions in fiber.)
In addition to possibly revising dietary recommendations for patients undergoing allo-HSCT, the findings raise the question of whether avoiding sugar intake while on antibiotics, in general, is a way to mitigate antibiotic-induced dysbiosis, he said.
To test the role of probiotics, Peled and colleagues collaborated with Seres Therapeutics on a phase 1b trial of an oral combination (SER-155) of 16 fermented strains “selected rationally,” he said, for their ability to decolonize gut pathogens, improve gut barrier function (in vitro), and reduce gut inflammation and local immune activation.
After a safety lead-in, patients were randomized to receive SER-155 (20) or placebo (14) three times — prior to transplant, upon neutrophil engraftment (with vancomycin “conditioning”), and after transplant. “The strains succeeded in grafting in the [gastrointestinal] GI tract…and some of them persisted all the way through to day 100,” Peled said.
The incidence of pathogen domination was substantially lower in the probiotic recipients compared to an MSK historical control cohort, and the incidence of BSIs was significantly lower compared to the placebo arm (10% vs 43%, respectively, representing a 77% relative risk reduction), he said.
Diet and Immunotherapy Response: Trials at MD Anderson
One of the first trials Daniel-MacDougall launched at MD Anderson on diet and the microbiome randomized 55 patients who were obese and had a history of colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps to add a cup of beans to their usual diet or to continue their usual diet without beans. There was a crossover at 8 weeks in the 16-week BE GONE trial; stool and fasting blood were collected every 4 weeks.
“Beans are a prebiotic super-house in my opinion, and they’re also something this population would avoid,” said Daniel-MacDougall, associate professor in the department of epidemiology at MD Anderson and faculty director of the Bionutrition Research Core and Research Kitchen.
“We saw a modest increase in alpha diversity [in the intervention group] and similar trends with microbiota-derived metabolites” that regressed when patients returned to their usual diet, she said. The researchers also documented decreases in proteomic biomarkers of intestinal and systemic immune and inflammatory response.
The impact of diet on cancer survival was shown in subsequent research, including an observational study published in Science in 2021 of patients with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) treatment. “Patients who consumed insufficient dietary fiber at the start of therapy tended to do worse [than those reporting sufficient fiber intake],” with significantly lower progression-free survival, Daniel-MacDougall said.
“And interestingly, when we looked at dietary fiber [with and without] probiotic use, patients who had sufficient fiber but did not take probiotics did the best,” she said. [The probiotics were not endorsed or selected by their physicians.]
Now, the researchers at MD Anderson are moving into “precision nutrition” research, Daniel-MacDougall said, with a phase 2 randomized, double-blind trial of high dietary fiber intake (a target of 50 g/d from whole foods) vs a healthy control diet (20 g/d of fiber) in patients with melanoma receiving ICB.
The study, which is underway, is a fully controlled feeding study, with all meals and snacks provided by MD Anderson and macronutrients controlled. Researchers are collecting blood, stool, and tumor tissue (if available) to answer questions about the microbiome, changes in systemic and tissue immunity, disease response and immunotherapy toxicity, and other issues.
Peled disclosed IP licensing and research support from Seres Therapeutics; consulting with Da Volterra, MaaT Pharma, and CSL Behring; and advisory/equity with Postbiotics + Research LLC and Prodigy Biosciences. Daniel-MacDougall reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON — For years, oncologist Jonathan Peled, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York City have been documenting gut microbiota disruption during allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) and its role in frequent and potentially fatal bloodstream infections (BSIs) in the first 100 days after transplant.
, and at the Gut Microbiota for Health (GMFH) World Summit 2025, Peled shared two new findings.
In one study, his team found that sucrose can exacerbate antibiotic-induced microbiome injury in patients undergoing allo-HSCT — a finding that “raises the question of whether our dietary recommendations [for] allo-HSCT patients are correct,” said Peled, assistant attending at MSKCC, during a session on the gut microbiome and oncology.
And in another study, they found that a rationally designed probiotic formulation may help lower the incidence of bacterial BSIs. In December 2024, the probiotic formulation (SER-155, Seres Therapeutics, Inc.) was granted breakthrough therapy designation by the FDA.
With immunotherapies more broadly, researchers are increasingly looking at diet and modulation of the microbiome to improve both treatment tolerance and efficacy, experts said at the meeting convened by the AGA and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility.
“Cancer patients and caregivers are asking, ‘What should I eat?’” said Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, PhD, MPH, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “They’re not just focused on side effects — they want a good outcome for their treatment, and they’re exploring a lot of dietary strategies [for which there] is not a lot of evidence.”
Clinicians are challenged by the fact that “we don’t typically collect dietary data in clinical trials of cancer drugs,” leaving them to extrapolate from evidence-based diet guidelines for cancer prevention, Daniel-MacDougall said.
But “I think that’s starting to shift,” she said, with the microbiome being increasingly recognized for its potential influences on therapeutic response and clinical trials underway looking at “a healthy dietary pattern not just for prevention but survival.”
Diet and Probiotics After allo-HSCT
The patterns of microbiota disruption during allo-HSCT — a procedure that includes antibiotic administration, chemotherapy, and sometimes irradiation — are characterized by loss of diversity and the expansion of potentially pathogenic organisms, most commonly Enterococcus, said Peled.
This has been demonstrated across transplantation centers. In a multicenter, international study published in 2020, the patterns of microbiota disruption and their impact on mortality were similar across MSK and other transplantation centers, with higher diversity of intestinal microbiota associated with lower mortality.
Other studies have shown that Enterococcus domination alone (defined arbitrarily as > 30% of fecal microbial composition) is associated with graft vs host disease and higher mortality after allo-HSCT and that intestinal domination by Proteobacteria coincides temporally with BSIs, he said.
Autologous fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been shown to largely restore the microbiota composition the patient had before antibiotic treatment and allo-HSCT, he said, making fecal sample banking and posttreatment FMT a potential approach for reconstituting the gut microbiome and improving outcomes.
But “lately we’ve been very interested in diet for modulating [harmful] patterns” in the microbiome composition, Peled said.
In the new study suggesting a role for sugar avoidance, published last year as a bioRxiv preprint, Peled and his colleagues collected real-time dietary intake data (40,702 food entries) from 173 patients hospitalized for several weeks for allo-HSCT at MSK and analyzed it alongside longitudinally collected fecal samples. They used a Bayesian mixed-effects model to identify dietary components that may correlate with microbial disruption.
“What jumped out as very predictive of a low diversity fecal sample [and expansion of Enterococcus] in the 2 days prior to collection was the interaction between antibiotics and the consumption of sweets” — foods rich in simple sugars, Peled said. The relationship between sugar and the microbiome occurred only during periods of antibiotic exposure.
“And it was particularly perplexing because the foods that fall into the ‘sweets’ category are foods we encourage people to eat clinically when they’re not feeling well and food intake drops dramatically,” he said. This includes foods like nutritional drinks or shakes, Italian ice, gelatin dessert, and sports drinks.
(In a mouse model of post-antibiotic Enterococcus expansion, Peled and his co-investigators then validated the findings and ruled out the impact of any reductions in fiber.)
In addition to possibly revising dietary recommendations for patients undergoing allo-HSCT, the findings raise the question of whether avoiding sugar intake while on antibiotics, in general, is a way to mitigate antibiotic-induced dysbiosis, he said.
To test the role of probiotics, Peled and colleagues collaborated with Seres Therapeutics on a phase 1b trial of an oral combination (SER-155) of 16 fermented strains “selected rationally,” he said, for their ability to decolonize gut pathogens, improve gut barrier function (in vitro), and reduce gut inflammation and local immune activation.
After a safety lead-in, patients were randomized to receive SER-155 (20) or placebo (14) three times — prior to transplant, upon neutrophil engraftment (with vancomycin “conditioning”), and after transplant. “The strains succeeded in grafting in the [gastrointestinal] GI tract…and some of them persisted all the way through to day 100,” Peled said.
The incidence of pathogen domination was substantially lower in the probiotic recipients compared to an MSK historical control cohort, and the incidence of BSIs was significantly lower compared to the placebo arm (10% vs 43%, respectively, representing a 77% relative risk reduction), he said.
Diet and Immunotherapy Response: Trials at MD Anderson
One of the first trials Daniel-MacDougall launched at MD Anderson on diet and the microbiome randomized 55 patients who were obese and had a history of colorectal cancer or precancerous polyps to add a cup of beans to their usual diet or to continue their usual diet without beans. There was a crossover at 8 weeks in the 16-week BE GONE trial; stool and fasting blood were collected every 4 weeks.
“Beans are a prebiotic super-house in my opinion, and they’re also something this population would avoid,” said Daniel-MacDougall, associate professor in the department of epidemiology at MD Anderson and faculty director of the Bionutrition Research Core and Research Kitchen.
“We saw a modest increase in alpha diversity [in the intervention group] and similar trends with microbiota-derived metabolites” that regressed when patients returned to their usual diet, she said. The researchers also documented decreases in proteomic biomarkers of intestinal and systemic immune and inflammatory response.
The impact of diet on cancer survival was shown in subsequent research, including an observational study published in Science in 2021 of patients with melanoma receiving immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) treatment. “Patients who consumed insufficient dietary fiber at the start of therapy tended to do worse [than those reporting sufficient fiber intake],” with significantly lower progression-free survival, Daniel-MacDougall said.
“And interestingly, when we looked at dietary fiber [with and without] probiotic use, patients who had sufficient fiber but did not take probiotics did the best,” she said. [The probiotics were not endorsed or selected by their physicians.]
Now, the researchers at MD Anderson are moving into “precision nutrition” research, Daniel-MacDougall said, with a phase 2 randomized, double-blind trial of high dietary fiber intake (a target of 50 g/d from whole foods) vs a healthy control diet (20 g/d of fiber) in patients with melanoma receiving ICB.
The study, which is underway, is a fully controlled feeding study, with all meals and snacks provided by MD Anderson and macronutrients controlled. Researchers are collecting blood, stool, and tumor tissue (if available) to answer questions about the microbiome, changes in systemic and tissue immunity, disease response and immunotherapy toxicity, and other issues.
Peled disclosed IP licensing and research support from Seres Therapeutics; consulting with Da Volterra, MaaT Pharma, and CSL Behring; and advisory/equity with Postbiotics + Research LLC and Prodigy Biosciences. Daniel-MacDougall reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Antibiotics Pre-Appendectomy Don’t Lower Perforation Risk, But Reduce Infections
, according to a new study.
While the percentage of surgical site infections (SSIs) was small for both groups, patients who received antibiotics during the waiting period had lower rates of these infections.
The trial — titled PERFECT-Antibiotics — was a substudy embedded in a larger PERFECT clinical trial, which aimed to determine whether an in-hospital delay of appendectomy resulted in increased risk for appendiceal perforation when compared to emergent surgery.
The trial “concluded that appendectomy does not need to be performed promptly in acute uncomplicated appendicitis and can be scheduled within 24 hours without increasing complications,” senior author Panu Mentula, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues wrote in the study. “The next question is whether preoperatively started antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of appendiceal perforations.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Surgery on May 14, 2025.
Trial Design
PERFECT-Antibiotics was an open-label, randomized trial conducted at two hospitals in Finland and one hospital in Norway. Researchers enrolled 1774 individuals diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, diagnosed clinically or via imaging. Patients were placed in one of two groups: The antibiotic group received intravenous (IV) cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours until surgery, while the nonantibiotic group waited for surgery without antibiotics.
All patients received one dose of IV cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis and secondary outcomes included complication rate and SSIs within 30 days of follow-up.
The median age of patients was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28-46 years), and 55% of patients were men. Patients waited a median time of 9 hours (IQR, 4.3-15.5) from study randomization to undergoing surgery.
No Difference in Appendiceal Perforation
Of the 888 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group, 26.2% received one dose, 38.7% received two doses, 22.6% received three doses, and 11.8% received four or more doses of antibiotics, including the antibiotic dose given during anesthesia. A total of 74 patients (8.3%) in this group had a perforated appendix.
Of the 886 patients not given preoperative antibiotics, 79 (8.9%) had a perforated appendix, which met the predetermined noninferiority threshold.
The groups had similar complication rates over the 30-day follow-up, though SSIs were lower in the antibiotic group (1.6%) than the no antibiotic group (3.2%).
The researchers estimated that the number needed to treat for antibiotic therapy was 63 for SSIs, 83 for intra-abdominal SSI, and 125 for reintervention.
“Although longer preoperative antibiotic treatment resulted in slightly lower rate of postoperative infectious complications, the actual difference was very small and probably clinically not significant to justify longer preoperative antibiotic treatment,” Mentula and colleagues wrote.
Lower Infection Rates With Antibiotics
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Theodore Pappas, MD, professor of surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, placed greater importance on these secondary outcomes.
Intra-abdominal infections, a subset of SSIs, were more than twice as common in the no-antibiotic group (1.9%) than in the antibiotic group (0.7%; P = .02). Positive blood cultures were also more common in the no-antibiotic group than the antibiotic group (P = .02).
While the authors qualified these results, “the reality was it was better to use antibiotics,” he said.
There was also a “big overlap between the two groups,” he said, which may have muted differences between the two groups. For example, one fourth of patients in the antibiotic group received only one dose of antibiotics, the same treatment regimen as the no-antibiotic group.
“Although protocol required prophylaxis in all patients in the induction of anesthesia, some clinicians thought that it was unnecessary, because antibiotics had already been given only a couple of hours ago” in patients in the antibiotic group, Mentula told GI & Hepatology News. She did not think that would affect the study’s results.
The PERFECT trial and the antibiotics subtrial answer two important questions that have been asked for years, Pappas continued: Whether appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis needs to be performed emergently and if antibiotics administered while waiting for surgery improve outcomes.
“Basically, the study shows that you probably should keep them on antibiotics while you’re waiting,” he said.
The study was funded by Finnish Medical Foundation, the Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation, the Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and The Norwegian Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance and research funds from the Finnish government. Mentula received grants from the Finnish government during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Pappas reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new study.
While the percentage of surgical site infections (SSIs) was small for both groups, patients who received antibiotics during the waiting period had lower rates of these infections.
The trial — titled PERFECT-Antibiotics — was a substudy embedded in a larger PERFECT clinical trial, which aimed to determine whether an in-hospital delay of appendectomy resulted in increased risk for appendiceal perforation when compared to emergent surgery.
The trial “concluded that appendectomy does not need to be performed promptly in acute uncomplicated appendicitis and can be scheduled within 24 hours without increasing complications,” senior author Panu Mentula, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues wrote in the study. “The next question is whether preoperatively started antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of appendiceal perforations.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Surgery on May 14, 2025.
Trial Design
PERFECT-Antibiotics was an open-label, randomized trial conducted at two hospitals in Finland and one hospital in Norway. Researchers enrolled 1774 individuals diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, diagnosed clinically or via imaging. Patients were placed in one of two groups: The antibiotic group received intravenous (IV) cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours until surgery, while the nonantibiotic group waited for surgery without antibiotics.
All patients received one dose of IV cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis and secondary outcomes included complication rate and SSIs within 30 days of follow-up.
The median age of patients was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28-46 years), and 55% of patients were men. Patients waited a median time of 9 hours (IQR, 4.3-15.5) from study randomization to undergoing surgery.
No Difference in Appendiceal Perforation
Of the 888 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group, 26.2% received one dose, 38.7% received two doses, 22.6% received three doses, and 11.8% received four or more doses of antibiotics, including the antibiotic dose given during anesthesia. A total of 74 patients (8.3%) in this group had a perforated appendix.
Of the 886 patients not given preoperative antibiotics, 79 (8.9%) had a perforated appendix, which met the predetermined noninferiority threshold.
The groups had similar complication rates over the 30-day follow-up, though SSIs were lower in the antibiotic group (1.6%) than the no antibiotic group (3.2%).
The researchers estimated that the number needed to treat for antibiotic therapy was 63 for SSIs, 83 for intra-abdominal SSI, and 125 for reintervention.
“Although longer preoperative antibiotic treatment resulted in slightly lower rate of postoperative infectious complications, the actual difference was very small and probably clinically not significant to justify longer preoperative antibiotic treatment,” Mentula and colleagues wrote.
Lower Infection Rates With Antibiotics
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Theodore Pappas, MD, professor of surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, placed greater importance on these secondary outcomes.
Intra-abdominal infections, a subset of SSIs, were more than twice as common in the no-antibiotic group (1.9%) than in the antibiotic group (0.7%; P = .02). Positive blood cultures were also more common in the no-antibiotic group than the antibiotic group (P = .02).
While the authors qualified these results, “the reality was it was better to use antibiotics,” he said.
There was also a “big overlap between the two groups,” he said, which may have muted differences between the two groups. For example, one fourth of patients in the antibiotic group received only one dose of antibiotics, the same treatment regimen as the no-antibiotic group.
“Although protocol required prophylaxis in all patients in the induction of anesthesia, some clinicians thought that it was unnecessary, because antibiotics had already been given only a couple of hours ago” in patients in the antibiotic group, Mentula told GI & Hepatology News. She did not think that would affect the study’s results.
The PERFECT trial and the antibiotics subtrial answer two important questions that have been asked for years, Pappas continued: Whether appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis needs to be performed emergently and if antibiotics administered while waiting for surgery improve outcomes.
“Basically, the study shows that you probably should keep them on antibiotics while you’re waiting,” he said.
The study was funded by Finnish Medical Foundation, the Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation, the Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and The Norwegian Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance and research funds from the Finnish government. Mentula received grants from the Finnish government during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Pappas reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a new study.
While the percentage of surgical site infections (SSIs) was small for both groups, patients who received antibiotics during the waiting period had lower rates of these infections.
The trial — titled PERFECT-Antibiotics — was a substudy embedded in a larger PERFECT clinical trial, which aimed to determine whether an in-hospital delay of appendectomy resulted in increased risk for appendiceal perforation when compared to emergent surgery.
The trial “concluded that appendectomy does not need to be performed promptly in acute uncomplicated appendicitis and can be scheduled within 24 hours without increasing complications,” senior author Panu Mentula, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland, and colleagues wrote in the study. “The next question is whether preoperatively started antibiotic treatment reduces the risk of appendiceal perforations.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Surgery on May 14, 2025.
Trial Design
PERFECT-Antibiotics was an open-label, randomized trial conducted at two hospitals in Finland and one hospital in Norway. Researchers enrolled 1774 individuals diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, diagnosed clinically or via imaging. Patients were placed in one of two groups: The antibiotic group received intravenous (IV) cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) every 8 hours until surgery, while the nonantibiotic group waited for surgery without antibiotics.
All patients received one dose of IV cefuroxime (1500 mg) and metronidazole (500 mg) during anesthesia induction. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis and secondary outcomes included complication rate and SSIs within 30 days of follow-up.
The median age of patients was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28-46 years), and 55% of patients were men. Patients waited a median time of 9 hours (IQR, 4.3-15.5) from study randomization to undergoing surgery.
No Difference in Appendiceal Perforation
Of the 888 patients in the preoperative antibiotic group, 26.2% received one dose, 38.7% received two doses, 22.6% received three doses, and 11.8% received four or more doses of antibiotics, including the antibiotic dose given during anesthesia. A total of 74 patients (8.3%) in this group had a perforated appendix.
Of the 886 patients not given preoperative antibiotics, 79 (8.9%) had a perforated appendix, which met the predetermined noninferiority threshold.
The groups had similar complication rates over the 30-day follow-up, though SSIs were lower in the antibiotic group (1.6%) than the no antibiotic group (3.2%).
The researchers estimated that the number needed to treat for antibiotic therapy was 63 for SSIs, 83 for intra-abdominal SSI, and 125 for reintervention.
“Although longer preoperative antibiotic treatment resulted in slightly lower rate of postoperative infectious complications, the actual difference was very small and probably clinically not significant to justify longer preoperative antibiotic treatment,” Mentula and colleagues wrote.
Lower Infection Rates With Antibiotics
Commenting on the study for GI & Hepatology News, Theodore Pappas, MD, professor of surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, placed greater importance on these secondary outcomes.
Intra-abdominal infections, a subset of SSIs, were more than twice as common in the no-antibiotic group (1.9%) than in the antibiotic group (0.7%; P = .02). Positive blood cultures were also more common in the no-antibiotic group than the antibiotic group (P = .02).
While the authors qualified these results, “the reality was it was better to use antibiotics,” he said.
There was also a “big overlap between the two groups,” he said, which may have muted differences between the two groups. For example, one fourth of patients in the antibiotic group received only one dose of antibiotics, the same treatment regimen as the no-antibiotic group.
“Although protocol required prophylaxis in all patients in the induction of anesthesia, some clinicians thought that it was unnecessary, because antibiotics had already been given only a couple of hours ago” in patients in the antibiotic group, Mentula told GI & Hepatology News. She did not think that would affect the study’s results.
The PERFECT trial and the antibiotics subtrial answer two important questions that have been asked for years, Pappas continued: Whether appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis needs to be performed emergently and if antibiotics administered while waiting for surgery improve outcomes.
“Basically, the study shows that you probably should keep them on antibiotics while you’re waiting,” he said.
The study was funded by Finnish Medical Foundation, the Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth Foundation, the Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and The Norwegian Surveillance Programme for Antimicrobial Resistance and research funds from the Finnish government. Mentula received grants from the Finnish government during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Pappas reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Gut Microbiome Changes in Chronic Pain — Test and Treat?
A new study adds to what has been emerging in the literature — namely that — suggesting that microbiome-based diagnostics and therapeutics may one day be routine for a broad range of pain conditions.
“There is now a whole list of pain conditions that appear to have these signatures, including postoperative pain, arthritis, neuropathy and migraine to name a few,” Robert Bonakdar, MD, director of pain management, Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine, San Diego, told GI & Hepatology News.
Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are also on the list.
A team led by Amir Minerbi, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Pain Medicine, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues published one of the first articles on gut changes in fibromyalgia. They noted that the gut microbiome could be utilized to determine which individuals had the condition and which did not — with about a 90% accuracy.
The team went on to show that transplanting gut microbiota from patients with fibromyalgia into germ-free mice was sufficient to induce pain-like behaviors in the animals — “effects that were reversed when healthy human microbiota were transplanted instead,” Minerbi told GI & Hepatology News.
Further, in a pilot clinical study, the researchers showed that transplanting microbiota from healthy donors led to a reduction in pain and other symptoms in women with treatment-resistant fibromyalgia.
Most recently, they found significant differences in the composition of the gut microbiome in a cohort of patients with CRPS from Israel, compared to matched pain-free control individuals.
Notably, two species — Dialister succinatiphilus and Phascolarctobacterium faecium – were enriched in patients with CRPS, while three species — Ligilactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium dentium, and Bifidobacterium adolescentis – were increased in control samples, according to their report published last month in Anesthesiology.
“Importantly,” these findings were replicated in an independent cohort of patients with CRPS from Canada, “suggesting that the observed microbiome signature is robust and consistent across different environments,” Minerbi told GI & Hepatology News.
Causal Role?
“These findings collectively suggest a causal role for the gut microbiome in at least some chronic pain conditions,” Minerbi said.
However, the co-authors of a linked editorial cautioned that it’s “unclear if D succinatiphilus or P faecium are functionally relevant to CRPS pathophysiology or if the bacteria increased in healthy control samples protect against CRPS development.”
Minerbi and colleagues also observed that fecal concentrations of all measured short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in patients with CRPS were lower on average compared to pain-free control individuals, of which butyric, hexanoic, and valeric acid showed significant depletion.
Additionally, plasma concentrations of acetic acid showed significant depletion in patients with CRPS vs control individuals, while propionate, butyrate, isobutyrate and 2-methyl-butyric acid showed a trend toward lower concentrations.
The quantification of SCFA in patient stool and serum is a “notable advance” in this study, Zulmary Manjarres, PhD; Ashley Plumb, PhD; and Katelyn Sadler, PhD; with the Center for Advanced Pain Studies at The University of Texas at Dallas, wrote in their editorial.
SCFA are produced by bacteria as a byproduct of dietary fiber fermentation and appropriate levels of these compounds are important to maintain low levels of inflammation in the colon and overall gut health, they explained.
This begs the question of whether administering probiotic bacteria — many of which are believed to exert health benefits through SCFA production — can be used to treat CRPS-associated pain. It’s something that needs to be studied, the editorialists wrote.
Yet, in their view, the “most notable achievement” of Minerbi and colleagues is the development of a machine learning model that accurately, specifically and sensitively categorized individuals as patients with CRPS or control individuals based on their fecal microbiome signature.
The model, trained on exact sequence variant data from the Israeli patients, achieved 89.5% accuracy, 90.0% sensitivity, and 88.9% specificity in distinguishing patients with CRPS from control individuals in the Canadian cohort.
Interestingly, in three patients with CRPS who underwent limb amputation and recovered from their pain, their gut microbiome signature remained unchanged, suggesting that microbiome alterations might precede or persist beyond symptomatic phases.
Test and Treat: Are We There Yet?
The gut microbiome link to chronic pain syndromes is a hot area of research, but for now gut microbial testing followed by treatment aimed at “fixing” the microbiome remains largely experimental.
At this point, comprehensive gut-microbiome sequencing is not a routine, guideline-supported part of care for fibromyalgia or any chronic pain condition.
“Unfortunately, even for doctors interested in this area, we are not quite at the state of being able to diagnose and treat pain syndrome based on microbiome data,” Bonakdar told GI & Hepatology News.
He said there are many reasons for this including that this type of microbiome analysis is not commonly available at a routine lab. If patients do obtain testing, then the results are quite complex and may not translate to a diagnosis or a simple microbiome intervention.
“I think the closest option we have now is considering supplementing with commonly beneficial probiotic in pain conditions,” Bonakdar said.
One example is a preliminary fibromyalgia trial which found that supplementing with Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Saccharomyces boulardii appeared to have benefit.
“Unfortunately, this is hit or miss as other trials such as one in low back pain did not find benefit,” Bonakdar said.
Addressing gut microbiome changes will become “more actionable when microbiome analysis is more commonplace as well as is the ability to tailor treatment to the abnormalities seen on testing in a real-world manner,” Bonakdar said.
“Until then, there is no harm in promoting an anti-inflammatory diet for our patients with pain which we know can improve components of the microbiome while also supporting pain management,” he concluded.
Minerbi, Bonakdar, and the editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study adds to what has been emerging in the literature — namely that — suggesting that microbiome-based diagnostics and therapeutics may one day be routine for a broad range of pain conditions.
“There is now a whole list of pain conditions that appear to have these signatures, including postoperative pain, arthritis, neuropathy and migraine to name a few,” Robert Bonakdar, MD, director of pain management, Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine, San Diego, told GI & Hepatology News.
Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are also on the list.
A team led by Amir Minerbi, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Pain Medicine, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues published one of the first articles on gut changes in fibromyalgia. They noted that the gut microbiome could be utilized to determine which individuals had the condition and which did not — with about a 90% accuracy.
The team went on to show that transplanting gut microbiota from patients with fibromyalgia into germ-free mice was sufficient to induce pain-like behaviors in the animals — “effects that were reversed when healthy human microbiota were transplanted instead,” Minerbi told GI & Hepatology News.
Further, in a pilot clinical study, the researchers showed that transplanting microbiota from healthy donors led to a reduction in pain and other symptoms in women with treatment-resistant fibromyalgia.
Most recently, they found significant differences in the composition of the gut microbiome in a cohort of patients with CRPS from Israel, compared to matched pain-free control individuals.
Notably, two species — Dialister succinatiphilus and Phascolarctobacterium faecium – were enriched in patients with CRPS, while three species — Ligilactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium dentium, and Bifidobacterium adolescentis – were increased in control samples, according to their report published last month in Anesthesiology.
“Importantly,” these findings were replicated in an independent cohort of patients with CRPS from Canada, “suggesting that the observed microbiome signature is robust and consistent across different environments,” Minerbi told GI & Hepatology News.
Causal Role?
“These findings collectively suggest a causal role for the gut microbiome in at least some chronic pain conditions,” Minerbi said.
However, the co-authors of a linked editorial cautioned that it’s “unclear if D succinatiphilus or P faecium are functionally relevant to CRPS pathophysiology or if the bacteria increased in healthy control samples protect against CRPS development.”
Minerbi and colleagues also observed that fecal concentrations of all measured short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in patients with CRPS were lower on average compared to pain-free control individuals, of which butyric, hexanoic, and valeric acid showed significant depletion.
Additionally, plasma concentrations of acetic acid showed significant depletion in patients with CRPS vs control individuals, while propionate, butyrate, isobutyrate and 2-methyl-butyric acid showed a trend toward lower concentrations.
The quantification of SCFA in patient stool and serum is a “notable advance” in this study, Zulmary Manjarres, PhD; Ashley Plumb, PhD; and Katelyn Sadler, PhD; with the Center for Advanced Pain Studies at The University of Texas at Dallas, wrote in their editorial.
SCFA are produced by bacteria as a byproduct of dietary fiber fermentation and appropriate levels of these compounds are important to maintain low levels of inflammation in the colon and overall gut health, they explained.
This begs the question of whether administering probiotic bacteria — many of which are believed to exert health benefits through SCFA production — can be used to treat CRPS-associated pain. It’s something that needs to be studied, the editorialists wrote.
Yet, in their view, the “most notable achievement” of Minerbi and colleagues is the development of a machine learning model that accurately, specifically and sensitively categorized individuals as patients with CRPS or control individuals based on their fecal microbiome signature.
The model, trained on exact sequence variant data from the Israeli patients, achieved 89.5% accuracy, 90.0% sensitivity, and 88.9% specificity in distinguishing patients with CRPS from control individuals in the Canadian cohort.
Interestingly, in three patients with CRPS who underwent limb amputation and recovered from their pain, their gut microbiome signature remained unchanged, suggesting that microbiome alterations might precede or persist beyond symptomatic phases.
Test and Treat: Are We There Yet?
The gut microbiome link to chronic pain syndromes is a hot area of research, but for now gut microbial testing followed by treatment aimed at “fixing” the microbiome remains largely experimental.
At this point, comprehensive gut-microbiome sequencing is not a routine, guideline-supported part of care for fibromyalgia or any chronic pain condition.
“Unfortunately, even for doctors interested in this area, we are not quite at the state of being able to diagnose and treat pain syndrome based on microbiome data,” Bonakdar told GI & Hepatology News.
He said there are many reasons for this including that this type of microbiome analysis is not commonly available at a routine lab. If patients do obtain testing, then the results are quite complex and may not translate to a diagnosis or a simple microbiome intervention.
“I think the closest option we have now is considering supplementing with commonly beneficial probiotic in pain conditions,” Bonakdar said.
One example is a preliminary fibromyalgia trial which found that supplementing with Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Saccharomyces boulardii appeared to have benefit.
“Unfortunately, this is hit or miss as other trials such as one in low back pain did not find benefit,” Bonakdar said.
Addressing gut microbiome changes will become “more actionable when microbiome analysis is more commonplace as well as is the ability to tailor treatment to the abnormalities seen on testing in a real-world manner,” Bonakdar said.
“Until then, there is no harm in promoting an anti-inflammatory diet for our patients with pain which we know can improve components of the microbiome while also supporting pain management,” he concluded.
Minerbi, Bonakdar, and the editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study adds to what has been emerging in the literature — namely that — suggesting that microbiome-based diagnostics and therapeutics may one day be routine for a broad range of pain conditions.
“There is now a whole list of pain conditions that appear to have these signatures, including postoperative pain, arthritis, neuropathy and migraine to name a few,” Robert Bonakdar, MD, director of pain management, Scripps Center for Integrative Medicine, San Diego, told GI & Hepatology News.
Fibromyalgia and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are also on the list.
A team led by Amir Minerbi, MD, PhD, director of the Institute for Pain Medicine, Haifa, Israel, and colleagues published one of the first articles on gut changes in fibromyalgia. They noted that the gut microbiome could be utilized to determine which individuals had the condition and which did not — with about a 90% accuracy.
The team went on to show that transplanting gut microbiota from patients with fibromyalgia into germ-free mice was sufficient to induce pain-like behaviors in the animals — “effects that were reversed when healthy human microbiota were transplanted instead,” Minerbi told GI & Hepatology News.
Further, in a pilot clinical study, the researchers showed that transplanting microbiota from healthy donors led to a reduction in pain and other symptoms in women with treatment-resistant fibromyalgia.
Most recently, they found significant differences in the composition of the gut microbiome in a cohort of patients with CRPS from Israel, compared to matched pain-free control individuals.
Notably, two species — Dialister succinatiphilus and Phascolarctobacterium faecium – were enriched in patients with CRPS, while three species — Ligilactobacillus salivarius, Bifidobacterium dentium, and Bifidobacterium adolescentis – were increased in control samples, according to their report published last month in Anesthesiology.
“Importantly,” these findings were replicated in an independent cohort of patients with CRPS from Canada, “suggesting that the observed microbiome signature is robust and consistent across different environments,” Minerbi told GI & Hepatology News.
Causal Role?
“These findings collectively suggest a causal role for the gut microbiome in at least some chronic pain conditions,” Minerbi said.
However, the co-authors of a linked editorial cautioned that it’s “unclear if D succinatiphilus or P faecium are functionally relevant to CRPS pathophysiology or if the bacteria increased in healthy control samples protect against CRPS development.”
Minerbi and colleagues also observed that fecal concentrations of all measured short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in patients with CRPS were lower on average compared to pain-free control individuals, of which butyric, hexanoic, and valeric acid showed significant depletion.
Additionally, plasma concentrations of acetic acid showed significant depletion in patients with CRPS vs control individuals, while propionate, butyrate, isobutyrate and 2-methyl-butyric acid showed a trend toward lower concentrations.
The quantification of SCFA in patient stool and serum is a “notable advance” in this study, Zulmary Manjarres, PhD; Ashley Plumb, PhD; and Katelyn Sadler, PhD; with the Center for Advanced Pain Studies at The University of Texas at Dallas, wrote in their editorial.
SCFA are produced by bacteria as a byproduct of dietary fiber fermentation and appropriate levels of these compounds are important to maintain low levels of inflammation in the colon and overall gut health, they explained.
This begs the question of whether administering probiotic bacteria — many of which are believed to exert health benefits through SCFA production — can be used to treat CRPS-associated pain. It’s something that needs to be studied, the editorialists wrote.
Yet, in their view, the “most notable achievement” of Minerbi and colleagues is the development of a machine learning model that accurately, specifically and sensitively categorized individuals as patients with CRPS or control individuals based on their fecal microbiome signature.
The model, trained on exact sequence variant data from the Israeli patients, achieved 89.5% accuracy, 90.0% sensitivity, and 88.9% specificity in distinguishing patients with CRPS from control individuals in the Canadian cohort.
Interestingly, in three patients with CRPS who underwent limb amputation and recovered from their pain, their gut microbiome signature remained unchanged, suggesting that microbiome alterations might precede or persist beyond symptomatic phases.
Test and Treat: Are We There Yet?
The gut microbiome link to chronic pain syndromes is a hot area of research, but for now gut microbial testing followed by treatment aimed at “fixing” the microbiome remains largely experimental.
At this point, comprehensive gut-microbiome sequencing is not a routine, guideline-supported part of care for fibromyalgia or any chronic pain condition.
“Unfortunately, even for doctors interested in this area, we are not quite at the state of being able to diagnose and treat pain syndrome based on microbiome data,” Bonakdar told GI & Hepatology News.
He said there are many reasons for this including that this type of microbiome analysis is not commonly available at a routine lab. If patients do obtain testing, then the results are quite complex and may not translate to a diagnosis or a simple microbiome intervention.
“I think the closest option we have now is considering supplementing with commonly beneficial probiotic in pain conditions,” Bonakdar said.
One example is a preliminary fibromyalgia trial which found that supplementing with Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Saccharomyces boulardii appeared to have benefit.
“Unfortunately, this is hit or miss as other trials such as one in low back pain did not find benefit,” Bonakdar said.
Addressing gut microbiome changes will become “more actionable when microbiome analysis is more commonplace as well as is the ability to tailor treatment to the abnormalities seen on testing in a real-world manner,” Bonakdar said.
“Until then, there is no harm in promoting an anti-inflammatory diet for our patients with pain which we know can improve components of the microbiome while also supporting pain management,” he concluded.
Minerbi, Bonakdar, and the editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Journal Highlights: January-April 2025
Esophagus/Motility
Carlson DA, et al. A Standardized Approach to Performing and Interpreting Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry for Esophageal Motility Disorders: The Dallas Consensus. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.234.
Parkman HP, et al; NIDDK Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Characterization of Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis Having Frequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.033.
Dellon ES, et al. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.024.
Small Bowel
Hård Af Segerstad EM, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Early Dietary Fiber Intake Reduces Celiac Disease Risk in Genetically Prone Children: Insights From the TEDDY Study. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.241.
Colon
Shaukat A, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Current Role of Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.003.
Bergman D, et al. Cholecystectomy is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.032.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Ben-Horin S, et al; Israeli IBD Research Nucleus (IIRN). Capsule Endoscopy-Guided Proactive Treat-to-Target Versus Continued Standard Care in Patients With Quiescent Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.031.
Pancreas
Guilabert L, et al; ERICA Consortium. Impact of Fluid Therapy in the Emergency Department in Acute Pancreatitis: a posthoc analysis of the WATERFALL Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.038.
Hepatology
Rhee H, et al. Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Ultrasonography for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: A Randomized, Single-Center Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.12.035.
Kronsten VT, et al. Hepatic Encephalopathy: When Lactulose and Rifaximin Are Not Working. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.010.
Edelson JC, et al. Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Liver Disease. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250918.
Miscellaneous
Martin J, et al. Practical and Impactful Tips for Private Industry Collaborations with Gastroenterology Practices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.021.
Tejada, Natalia et al. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated With Increased Incidence of Pneumonia After Endoscopic Procedures. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250925.
Lazaridis KN, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics and the Digestive System. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100694.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Esophagus/Motility
Carlson DA, et al. A Standardized Approach to Performing and Interpreting Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry for Esophageal Motility Disorders: The Dallas Consensus. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.234.
Parkman HP, et al; NIDDK Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Characterization of Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis Having Frequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.033.
Dellon ES, et al. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.024.
Small Bowel
Hård Af Segerstad EM, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Early Dietary Fiber Intake Reduces Celiac Disease Risk in Genetically Prone Children: Insights From the TEDDY Study. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.241.
Colon
Shaukat A, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Current Role of Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.003.
Bergman D, et al. Cholecystectomy is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.032.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Ben-Horin S, et al; Israeli IBD Research Nucleus (IIRN). Capsule Endoscopy-Guided Proactive Treat-to-Target Versus Continued Standard Care in Patients With Quiescent Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.031.
Pancreas
Guilabert L, et al; ERICA Consortium. Impact of Fluid Therapy in the Emergency Department in Acute Pancreatitis: a posthoc analysis of the WATERFALL Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.038.
Hepatology
Rhee H, et al. Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Ultrasonography for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: A Randomized, Single-Center Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.12.035.
Kronsten VT, et al. Hepatic Encephalopathy: When Lactulose and Rifaximin Are Not Working. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.010.
Edelson JC, et al. Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Liver Disease. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250918.
Miscellaneous
Martin J, et al. Practical and Impactful Tips for Private Industry Collaborations with Gastroenterology Practices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.021.
Tejada, Natalia et al. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated With Increased Incidence of Pneumonia After Endoscopic Procedures. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250925.
Lazaridis KN, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics and the Digestive System. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100694.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Esophagus/Motility
Carlson DA, et al. A Standardized Approach to Performing and Interpreting Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry for Esophageal Motility Disorders: The Dallas Consensus. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.234.
Parkman HP, et al; NIDDK Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Characterization of Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis Having Frequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.033.
Dellon ES, et al. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.024.
Small Bowel
Hård Af Segerstad EM, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Early Dietary Fiber Intake Reduces Celiac Disease Risk in Genetically Prone Children: Insights From the TEDDY Study. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.241.
Colon
Shaukat A, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Current Role of Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.003.
Bergman D, et al. Cholecystectomy is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.032.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Ben-Horin S, et al; Israeli IBD Research Nucleus (IIRN). Capsule Endoscopy-Guided Proactive Treat-to-Target Versus Continued Standard Care in Patients With Quiescent Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.031.
Pancreas
Guilabert L, et al; ERICA Consortium. Impact of Fluid Therapy in the Emergency Department in Acute Pancreatitis: a posthoc analysis of the WATERFALL Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.038.
Hepatology
Rhee H, et al. Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Ultrasonography for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: A Randomized, Single-Center Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.12.035.
Kronsten VT, et al. Hepatic Encephalopathy: When Lactulose and Rifaximin Are Not Working. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.010.
Edelson JC, et al. Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Liver Disease. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250918.
Miscellaneous
Martin J, et al. Practical and Impactful Tips for Private Industry Collaborations with Gastroenterology Practices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.021.
Tejada, Natalia et al. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated With Increased Incidence of Pneumonia After Endoscopic Procedures. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250925.
Lazaridis KN, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics and the Digestive System. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100694.
Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.
Video Capsule Endoscopy Aids Targeted Treatment in Quiescent Crohn’s
A treat-to target (T2T) strategy based on video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified Crohn’s disease (CD) patients in clinical remission but with small bowel inflammation, resulting in fewer clinical flares versus a treat-by-symptoms standard approach.
“A VCE-guided treat-to-target strategy for patients with CD in remission confers superior clinical outcomes compared with continued standard care,” investigators led by Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, director of gastroenterology at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Published in Gastroenterology, the CURE-CD (Comprehensive Individualized Proactive Therapy of Crohn’s Disease), a prospective, temporally blinded, randomized controled trial, looked at 60 adult patients with quiescent CD involving the small bowel (either L1 or L3 iof the terminal ileum and upper colon).
The researchers defined quiescent disease as corticosteroid-free clinical remission with a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of <50 for the past 3 months on a stable regimen.
Patients ingested a VCE at baseline and those with a Lewis inflammatory score (LS) of ≥350 were designated high risk (n = 40) and randomized to either T2T optimization (n = 20) or continuing standard care (n = 20).
T2T was optimized with repeat VCE results every 6 months. Patients with LS <350 (“low risk”) continued standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of disease exacerbation, demonstrated by a CDAI increase of >70 points and a score >150, or hospitalization/surgery, in high-risk standard care vs T2T groups at 24 months.
Treatment intensification in the high-risk group allocated to a proactive strategy comprised biologic dose escalation (n = 11 of 20), starting a biologic (n = 8 of 20), or swapping biologics (n = 1 of 20).
The primary outcome, clinical flare by 24 months, occurred in 5 of 20 (25%) of high-risk treat-to-target patients vs 14 of 20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], .14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.57, P = .006).
Mucosal healing was significantly more common in the T2T group when determined by a cutoff LS < 350 (OR, 4.5, 95% CI, 1.7–17.4, nominal P value = .03), but not by the combined scores of total LS < 450 and highest-segment LS < 350.
Among all patients continuing standard care (n = 40), baseline LS was numerically higher among relapsers vs nonrelapsers (450, 225–900 vs 225, 135–600, respectively, P = .07).
As to safety, of 221 VCEs ingested, there was a single (.4%) temporary retention, which spontaneously resolved.
“VCE monitoring of CD was approved into government reimbursement in Israel last year, and I know several European countries are also considering the inclusion of this new indication for VCE in their payer reimbursement,” Ben-Horin told GI & Hepatology News. “Uptake in Israel is still baby-stepping. In our center it’s much more common to monitor T2T for small bowel patients, but this approach is still not widely applied.”
The authors cautioned that since the focus was the small bowel, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to patients with Crohn’s colitis.
The study was supported by the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic (USA), AbbVie (Israel), and Takeda. The funders did not intervene in the design or interpretation of the study.
Ben-Horin reported advisory, consulting fees, research support, and/or stocks/options from several pharmaceutical firms. Several coauthors disclosed similar relations with private-sector companies.
As treat-to-target (T2T) strategies continue to redefine inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, this randomized controlled trial by Ben-Horin et al. highlights the value of proactive video capsule endoscopy (VCE) monitoring in patients with quiescent small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD).
The study demonstrated that scheduled VCE every six months, used to guide treatment adjustments, significantly reduced clinical flares over 24 months compared to symptom-based standard care. While differences in mucosal healing between groups were less pronounced, the results underscore that monitoring objective inflammation, even in asymptomatic patients, can improve clinical outcomes.
In clinical practice, symptom-driven management remains common, often due to limited access to endoscopy or patient hesitancy toward invasive procedures. VCE offers a non-invasive, well-tolerated alternative that may improve patient adherence to disease monitoring, particularly in small bowel CD. This approach addresses a significant gap in care, as nearly half of IBD patients do not undergo objective disease assessment within a year of starting biologics.
Clinicians should consider integrating VCE into individualized T2T strategies, especially in settings where endoscopic access is constrained. Furthermore, adjunctive non-invasive tools such as intestinal ultrasound (IUS) with biomarkers could further support a non-invasive, patient-centered monitoring approach. As the definition of remission evolves toward more ambitious targets like transmural healing, the integration of cross-sectional imaging modalities such as IUS into routine monitoring protocols may become essential. Aligning monitoring techniques with evolving therapeutic targets and patient preferences will be key to optimizing long-term disease control in CD.
Mariangela Allocca, MD, PhD, is head of the IBD Center at IRCCS Hospital San Raffaele, and professor of gastroenterology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, both in Milan, Italy. Silvio Danese, MD, PhD, is professor of gastroenterology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University and IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan. Both authors report consulting and/or speaking fees from multiple drug and device companies.
As treat-to-target (T2T) strategies continue to redefine inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, this randomized controlled trial by Ben-Horin et al. highlights the value of proactive video capsule endoscopy (VCE) monitoring in patients with quiescent small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD).
The study demonstrated that scheduled VCE every six months, used to guide treatment adjustments, significantly reduced clinical flares over 24 months compared to symptom-based standard care. While differences in mucosal healing between groups were less pronounced, the results underscore that monitoring objective inflammation, even in asymptomatic patients, can improve clinical outcomes.
In clinical practice, symptom-driven management remains common, often due to limited access to endoscopy or patient hesitancy toward invasive procedures. VCE offers a non-invasive, well-tolerated alternative that may improve patient adherence to disease monitoring, particularly in small bowel CD. This approach addresses a significant gap in care, as nearly half of IBD patients do not undergo objective disease assessment within a year of starting biologics.
Clinicians should consider integrating VCE into individualized T2T strategies, especially in settings where endoscopic access is constrained. Furthermore, adjunctive non-invasive tools such as intestinal ultrasound (IUS) with biomarkers could further support a non-invasive, patient-centered monitoring approach. As the definition of remission evolves toward more ambitious targets like transmural healing, the integration of cross-sectional imaging modalities such as IUS into routine monitoring protocols may become essential. Aligning monitoring techniques with evolving therapeutic targets and patient preferences will be key to optimizing long-term disease control in CD.
Mariangela Allocca, MD, PhD, is head of the IBD Center at IRCCS Hospital San Raffaele, and professor of gastroenterology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, both in Milan, Italy. Silvio Danese, MD, PhD, is professor of gastroenterology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University and IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan. Both authors report consulting and/or speaking fees from multiple drug and device companies.
As treat-to-target (T2T) strategies continue to redefine inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, this randomized controlled trial by Ben-Horin et al. highlights the value of proactive video capsule endoscopy (VCE) monitoring in patients with quiescent small bowel Crohn’s disease (CD).
The study demonstrated that scheduled VCE every six months, used to guide treatment adjustments, significantly reduced clinical flares over 24 months compared to symptom-based standard care. While differences in mucosal healing between groups were less pronounced, the results underscore that monitoring objective inflammation, even in asymptomatic patients, can improve clinical outcomes.
In clinical practice, symptom-driven management remains common, often due to limited access to endoscopy or patient hesitancy toward invasive procedures. VCE offers a non-invasive, well-tolerated alternative that may improve patient adherence to disease monitoring, particularly in small bowel CD. This approach addresses a significant gap in care, as nearly half of IBD patients do not undergo objective disease assessment within a year of starting biologics.
Clinicians should consider integrating VCE into individualized T2T strategies, especially in settings where endoscopic access is constrained. Furthermore, adjunctive non-invasive tools such as intestinal ultrasound (IUS) with biomarkers could further support a non-invasive, patient-centered monitoring approach. As the definition of remission evolves toward more ambitious targets like transmural healing, the integration of cross-sectional imaging modalities such as IUS into routine monitoring protocols may become essential. Aligning monitoring techniques with evolving therapeutic targets and patient preferences will be key to optimizing long-term disease control in CD.
Mariangela Allocca, MD, PhD, is head of the IBD Center at IRCCS Hospital San Raffaele, and professor of gastroenterology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, both in Milan, Italy. Silvio Danese, MD, PhD, is professor of gastroenterology at Vita-Salute San Raffaele University and IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan. Both authors report consulting and/or speaking fees from multiple drug and device companies.
A treat-to target (T2T) strategy based on video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified Crohn’s disease (CD) patients in clinical remission but with small bowel inflammation, resulting in fewer clinical flares versus a treat-by-symptoms standard approach.
“A VCE-guided treat-to-target strategy for patients with CD in remission confers superior clinical outcomes compared with continued standard care,” investigators led by Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, director of gastroenterology at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Published in Gastroenterology, the CURE-CD (Comprehensive Individualized Proactive Therapy of Crohn’s Disease), a prospective, temporally blinded, randomized controled trial, looked at 60 adult patients with quiescent CD involving the small bowel (either L1 or L3 iof the terminal ileum and upper colon).
The researchers defined quiescent disease as corticosteroid-free clinical remission with a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of <50 for the past 3 months on a stable regimen.
Patients ingested a VCE at baseline and those with a Lewis inflammatory score (LS) of ≥350 were designated high risk (n = 40) and randomized to either T2T optimization (n = 20) or continuing standard care (n = 20).
T2T was optimized with repeat VCE results every 6 months. Patients with LS <350 (“low risk”) continued standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of disease exacerbation, demonstrated by a CDAI increase of >70 points and a score >150, or hospitalization/surgery, in high-risk standard care vs T2T groups at 24 months.
Treatment intensification in the high-risk group allocated to a proactive strategy comprised biologic dose escalation (n = 11 of 20), starting a biologic (n = 8 of 20), or swapping biologics (n = 1 of 20).
The primary outcome, clinical flare by 24 months, occurred in 5 of 20 (25%) of high-risk treat-to-target patients vs 14 of 20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], .14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.57, P = .006).
Mucosal healing was significantly more common in the T2T group when determined by a cutoff LS < 350 (OR, 4.5, 95% CI, 1.7–17.4, nominal P value = .03), but not by the combined scores of total LS < 450 and highest-segment LS < 350.
Among all patients continuing standard care (n = 40), baseline LS was numerically higher among relapsers vs nonrelapsers (450, 225–900 vs 225, 135–600, respectively, P = .07).
As to safety, of 221 VCEs ingested, there was a single (.4%) temporary retention, which spontaneously resolved.
“VCE monitoring of CD was approved into government reimbursement in Israel last year, and I know several European countries are also considering the inclusion of this new indication for VCE in their payer reimbursement,” Ben-Horin told GI & Hepatology News. “Uptake in Israel is still baby-stepping. In our center it’s much more common to monitor T2T for small bowel patients, but this approach is still not widely applied.”
The authors cautioned that since the focus was the small bowel, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to patients with Crohn’s colitis.
The study was supported by the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic (USA), AbbVie (Israel), and Takeda. The funders did not intervene in the design or interpretation of the study.
Ben-Horin reported advisory, consulting fees, research support, and/or stocks/options from several pharmaceutical firms. Several coauthors disclosed similar relations with private-sector companies.
A treat-to target (T2T) strategy based on video capsule endoscopy (VCE) identified Crohn’s disease (CD) patients in clinical remission but with small bowel inflammation, resulting in fewer clinical flares versus a treat-by-symptoms standard approach.
“A VCE-guided treat-to-target strategy for patients with CD in remission confers superior clinical outcomes compared with continued standard care,” investigators led by Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, director of gastroenterology at Sheba Medical Center in Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Published in Gastroenterology, the CURE-CD (Comprehensive Individualized Proactive Therapy of Crohn’s Disease), a prospective, temporally blinded, randomized controled trial, looked at 60 adult patients with quiescent CD involving the small bowel (either L1 or L3 iof the terminal ileum and upper colon).
The researchers defined quiescent disease as corticosteroid-free clinical remission with a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of <50 for the past 3 months on a stable regimen.
Patients ingested a VCE at baseline and those with a Lewis inflammatory score (LS) of ≥350 were designated high risk (n = 40) and randomized to either T2T optimization (n = 20) or continuing standard care (n = 20).
T2T was optimized with repeat VCE results every 6 months. Patients with LS <350 (“low risk”) continued standard care. The primary outcome was the rate of disease exacerbation, demonstrated by a CDAI increase of >70 points and a score >150, or hospitalization/surgery, in high-risk standard care vs T2T groups at 24 months.
Treatment intensification in the high-risk group allocated to a proactive strategy comprised biologic dose escalation (n = 11 of 20), starting a biologic (n = 8 of 20), or swapping biologics (n = 1 of 20).
The primary outcome, clinical flare by 24 months, occurred in 5 of 20 (25%) of high-risk treat-to-target patients vs 14 of 20 (70%) of the high-risk standard-care group (odds ratio [OR], .14; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.57, P = .006).
Mucosal healing was significantly more common in the T2T group when determined by a cutoff LS < 350 (OR, 4.5, 95% CI, 1.7–17.4, nominal P value = .03), but not by the combined scores of total LS < 450 and highest-segment LS < 350.
Among all patients continuing standard care (n = 40), baseline LS was numerically higher among relapsers vs nonrelapsers (450, 225–900 vs 225, 135–600, respectively, P = .07).
As to safety, of 221 VCEs ingested, there was a single (.4%) temporary retention, which spontaneously resolved.
“VCE monitoring of CD was approved into government reimbursement in Israel last year, and I know several European countries are also considering the inclusion of this new indication for VCE in their payer reimbursement,” Ben-Horin told GI & Hepatology News. “Uptake in Israel is still baby-stepping. In our center it’s much more common to monitor T2T for small bowel patients, but this approach is still not widely applied.”
The authors cautioned that since the focus was the small bowel, the findings are not necessarily generalizable to patients with Crohn’s colitis.
The study was supported by the Leona M. & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Medtronic (USA), AbbVie (Israel), and Takeda. The funders did not intervene in the design or interpretation of the study.
Ben-Horin reported advisory, consulting fees, research support, and/or stocks/options from several pharmaceutical firms. Several coauthors disclosed similar relations with private-sector companies.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY