User login
MDedge latest news is breaking news from medical conferences, journals, guidelines, the FDA and CDC.
Could a Clinical Decision Support Tool Improve Outcomes in Pediatric Diarrhea?
“Clinical decision support tools are designed to assist clinicians in making informed and accurate diagnostic and prognostic decisions using available characteristics of the patient and the larger context,” Anna Jones, MD, MPH, and her colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Jones is in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.
Jones and her coauthors concluded such a tool had the potential to improve evidence-based testing in pediatric diarrhea and help clinicians communicate clearly to parents the etiology of their child’s illness. Parents in the study, however, expressed skepticism over the tool, voicing concerns that physicians might over-rely on its algorithms.
The authors said that thanks to the development of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for gastroenteritis, it is now possible to quickly identify up to 22 different pathogens from stool samples. What is lacking, they suggested, are protocols for knowing when to test for these pathogens.
“Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea provide broad recommendations for when diarrhea-related diagnostics should be used, clear guidelines specific to the use of multiplex PCR panels do not exist,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, adding that misusing the diagnostics, however, “can lead to inappropriate antibiotic use and excess financial burdens.”
Meanwhile, communication breakdowns in the patient-doctor relationship are a leading contributor to diagnostic errors, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequently, the National Academy of Medicine has recommended that healthcare professionals seek to engage patients and their families in the diagnostic process.
With these factors in mind, Jones and her colleagues recruited parents who had sought care for their child’s diarrhea and clinicians who routinely treat children with diarrhea. The recruits came from five urgent care sites and one emergency department (ED), all in Utah. Participants were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and January 24, 2025.
In all, the authors interviewed 44 parents (40 women; median age, 34 years). One parent (2%) identified as Asian, two (5%) as Black or African American, 15 (34%) as Hispanic or Latin, and 22 (50%) as White individuals. The remaining four participants (9%) were of unknown race and ethnicity. Most parents spoke English as their primary language (40 [91%]).
Among the 16 clinicians, 10 were physicians and six were nurse practitioners or physician associates. Eleven of the 16 were women and the group had a median age of 42 years. Fourteen clinicians (88%) self-identified as White individuals and two (13%) had unknown race and ethnicity.
All were interviewed on their management of pediatric diarrhea and about their expectations for diagnostic testing and treatment of the condition, as well as the perceived utility of a clinical decision support tool.
Jones and colleagues identified three motivations among parents who sought clinical care for a child with diarrhea. The first was reassurance, which the authors said included validation for what the parents were already doing to care for their child.
The second motivation was to obtain insight into the etiology of their child’s symptoms. “Many believed that diagnostic testing to identify the specific etiology of the illness would be useful. Parents indicated that knowing the etiology would offer desired reassurance and potentially inform treatment decisions,” Jones and her coauthors wrote.
Lastly, parents sought appropriate treatment and symptom relief.
Many clinicians acknowledged the benefits of a clinical decision support tool for help with evidence-based decision-making during diagnosis and to facilitate communication with families. However, they expressed skepticism over the use of diagnostics for etiology, noting that disease management was not dependent upon knowing it.
Some clinicians said many families expected a test. “Even if I don’t think that a GI [gastrointestinal] stool study is necessary, there are situations where…a family is not going to leave the [ED] happy without one. And so I probably order them sometimes when they’re not truly indicated,” a physician reported in the interview.
“That said,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, “clinicians thought that diagnostic testing for pediatric diarrhea was generally not warranted, except in unique cases [such as] bloody stools, prolonged duration of diarrhea, or travel history.”
Many clinicians thought a decision-making tool might help build trust and rapport with the patient’s family, reassuring them their child is getting evidence-based care.
“It just adds to that shared decision-making model. I think it adds trust…I think it does kind of back up our ability to defend why we’re doing what we’re doing,” reported one surveyed ED physician.
Parents were mostly wary of the potential use of a clinical decision-making tool. Jones and colleagues reported that in addition to some clinicians, “several parents expressed concerns that a tool does not account for nuances and would lead to ‘generalizing every kid’ (said the father of a child aged 1-3 years), as opposed to providing patient-centered care.”
Parents also said they worried a clinician would not reply upon their own clinical judgement if they had a diagnostic tool.
Jones and her colleagues concluded that before implementing a clinical decision support tool in pediatric diarrhea, strategies are necessary to, “resolve tension in care expectations, facilitate diagnostic stewardship, and optimize care.”
In an accompanying editorial, KC Coffey, MD, MPH, concluded that the study by Jones and colleagues suggests that adapting such tools to incorporate parental expectations, “could facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and increase acceptance of [using these tools for] decisions. Such discussions might also raise awareness of the potential harms of over testing.” Coffey is an epidemiologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Dobler, MD, who was not involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News that “as the number of available tests continues to grow, stewardship is becoming more relevant than ever. Families may not always realize the downsides of unnecessary testing — such as false positives, avoidable procedures, or added risks — and part of our responsibility is to help them understand both the potential benefits and the potential harms of these tests.”
Dobler is the medical director for clinical decision support in the Department of Clinical Informatics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago.
Clinical decision support tools are helpful in the clinical setting, Dobler said because “they give providers quick access to the most relevant information needed for decision-making. This includes patient-specific details — symptoms, history, labs, and vitals” as well as the characteristics and downsides of the tests. In an ideal world, she said, clinicians would consider these data for every patient.
Dobler cautioned however, that, “it’s important to stress that these tools don’t replace clinical judgment — the provider still evaluates the patient, considers the clinical context, and incorporates the family’s preferences. But as a complement to that process, I believe these tools are very valuable.”
Lastly, Dobler said that transparency is key to helping parents overcome their hesitancy regarding these tools.
Jones, Coffey, and Dobler reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Clinical decision support tools are designed to assist clinicians in making informed and accurate diagnostic and prognostic decisions using available characteristics of the patient and the larger context,” Anna Jones, MD, MPH, and her colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Jones is in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.
Jones and her coauthors concluded such a tool had the potential to improve evidence-based testing in pediatric diarrhea and help clinicians communicate clearly to parents the etiology of their child’s illness. Parents in the study, however, expressed skepticism over the tool, voicing concerns that physicians might over-rely on its algorithms.
The authors said that thanks to the development of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for gastroenteritis, it is now possible to quickly identify up to 22 different pathogens from stool samples. What is lacking, they suggested, are protocols for knowing when to test for these pathogens.
“Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea provide broad recommendations for when diarrhea-related diagnostics should be used, clear guidelines specific to the use of multiplex PCR panels do not exist,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, adding that misusing the diagnostics, however, “can lead to inappropriate antibiotic use and excess financial burdens.”
Meanwhile, communication breakdowns in the patient-doctor relationship are a leading contributor to diagnostic errors, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequently, the National Academy of Medicine has recommended that healthcare professionals seek to engage patients and their families in the diagnostic process.
With these factors in mind, Jones and her colleagues recruited parents who had sought care for their child’s diarrhea and clinicians who routinely treat children with diarrhea. The recruits came from five urgent care sites and one emergency department (ED), all in Utah. Participants were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and January 24, 2025.
In all, the authors interviewed 44 parents (40 women; median age, 34 years). One parent (2%) identified as Asian, two (5%) as Black or African American, 15 (34%) as Hispanic or Latin, and 22 (50%) as White individuals. The remaining four participants (9%) were of unknown race and ethnicity. Most parents spoke English as their primary language (40 [91%]).
Among the 16 clinicians, 10 were physicians and six were nurse practitioners or physician associates. Eleven of the 16 were women and the group had a median age of 42 years. Fourteen clinicians (88%) self-identified as White individuals and two (13%) had unknown race and ethnicity.
All were interviewed on their management of pediatric diarrhea and about their expectations for diagnostic testing and treatment of the condition, as well as the perceived utility of a clinical decision support tool.
Jones and colleagues identified three motivations among parents who sought clinical care for a child with diarrhea. The first was reassurance, which the authors said included validation for what the parents were already doing to care for their child.
The second motivation was to obtain insight into the etiology of their child’s symptoms. “Many believed that diagnostic testing to identify the specific etiology of the illness would be useful. Parents indicated that knowing the etiology would offer desired reassurance and potentially inform treatment decisions,” Jones and her coauthors wrote.
Lastly, parents sought appropriate treatment and symptom relief.
Many clinicians acknowledged the benefits of a clinical decision support tool for help with evidence-based decision-making during diagnosis and to facilitate communication with families. However, they expressed skepticism over the use of diagnostics for etiology, noting that disease management was not dependent upon knowing it.
Some clinicians said many families expected a test. “Even if I don’t think that a GI [gastrointestinal] stool study is necessary, there are situations where…a family is not going to leave the [ED] happy without one. And so I probably order them sometimes when they’re not truly indicated,” a physician reported in the interview.
“That said,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, “clinicians thought that diagnostic testing for pediatric diarrhea was generally not warranted, except in unique cases [such as] bloody stools, prolonged duration of diarrhea, or travel history.”
Many clinicians thought a decision-making tool might help build trust and rapport with the patient’s family, reassuring them their child is getting evidence-based care.
“It just adds to that shared decision-making model. I think it adds trust…I think it does kind of back up our ability to defend why we’re doing what we’re doing,” reported one surveyed ED physician.
Parents were mostly wary of the potential use of a clinical decision-making tool. Jones and colleagues reported that in addition to some clinicians, “several parents expressed concerns that a tool does not account for nuances and would lead to ‘generalizing every kid’ (said the father of a child aged 1-3 years), as opposed to providing patient-centered care.”
Parents also said they worried a clinician would not reply upon their own clinical judgement if they had a diagnostic tool.
Jones and her colleagues concluded that before implementing a clinical decision support tool in pediatric diarrhea, strategies are necessary to, “resolve tension in care expectations, facilitate diagnostic stewardship, and optimize care.”
In an accompanying editorial, KC Coffey, MD, MPH, concluded that the study by Jones and colleagues suggests that adapting such tools to incorporate parental expectations, “could facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and increase acceptance of [using these tools for] decisions. Such discussions might also raise awareness of the potential harms of over testing.” Coffey is an epidemiologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Dobler, MD, who was not involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News that “as the number of available tests continues to grow, stewardship is becoming more relevant than ever. Families may not always realize the downsides of unnecessary testing — such as false positives, avoidable procedures, or added risks — and part of our responsibility is to help them understand both the potential benefits and the potential harms of these tests.”
Dobler is the medical director for clinical decision support in the Department of Clinical Informatics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago.
Clinical decision support tools are helpful in the clinical setting, Dobler said because “they give providers quick access to the most relevant information needed for decision-making. This includes patient-specific details — symptoms, history, labs, and vitals” as well as the characteristics and downsides of the tests. In an ideal world, she said, clinicians would consider these data for every patient.
Dobler cautioned however, that, “it’s important to stress that these tools don’t replace clinical judgment — the provider still evaluates the patient, considers the clinical context, and incorporates the family’s preferences. But as a complement to that process, I believe these tools are very valuable.”
Lastly, Dobler said that transparency is key to helping parents overcome their hesitancy regarding these tools.
Jones, Coffey, and Dobler reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Clinical decision support tools are designed to assist clinicians in making informed and accurate diagnostic and prognostic decisions using available characteristics of the patient and the larger context,” Anna Jones, MD, MPH, and her colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Jones is in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.
Jones and her coauthors concluded such a tool had the potential to improve evidence-based testing in pediatric diarrhea and help clinicians communicate clearly to parents the etiology of their child’s illness. Parents in the study, however, expressed skepticism over the tool, voicing concerns that physicians might over-rely on its algorithms.
The authors said that thanks to the development of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for gastroenteritis, it is now possible to quickly identify up to 22 different pathogens from stool samples. What is lacking, they suggested, are protocols for knowing when to test for these pathogens.
“Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea provide broad recommendations for when diarrhea-related diagnostics should be used, clear guidelines specific to the use of multiplex PCR panels do not exist,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, adding that misusing the diagnostics, however, “can lead to inappropriate antibiotic use and excess financial burdens.”
Meanwhile, communication breakdowns in the patient-doctor relationship are a leading contributor to diagnostic errors, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequently, the National Academy of Medicine has recommended that healthcare professionals seek to engage patients and their families in the diagnostic process.
With these factors in mind, Jones and her colleagues recruited parents who had sought care for their child’s diarrhea and clinicians who routinely treat children with diarrhea. The recruits came from five urgent care sites and one emergency department (ED), all in Utah. Participants were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and January 24, 2025.
In all, the authors interviewed 44 parents (40 women; median age, 34 years). One parent (2%) identified as Asian, two (5%) as Black or African American, 15 (34%) as Hispanic or Latin, and 22 (50%) as White individuals. The remaining four participants (9%) were of unknown race and ethnicity. Most parents spoke English as their primary language (40 [91%]).
Among the 16 clinicians, 10 were physicians and six were nurse practitioners or physician associates. Eleven of the 16 were women and the group had a median age of 42 years. Fourteen clinicians (88%) self-identified as White individuals and two (13%) had unknown race and ethnicity.
All were interviewed on their management of pediatric diarrhea and about their expectations for diagnostic testing and treatment of the condition, as well as the perceived utility of a clinical decision support tool.
Jones and colleagues identified three motivations among parents who sought clinical care for a child with diarrhea. The first was reassurance, which the authors said included validation for what the parents were already doing to care for their child.
The second motivation was to obtain insight into the etiology of their child’s symptoms. “Many believed that diagnostic testing to identify the specific etiology of the illness would be useful. Parents indicated that knowing the etiology would offer desired reassurance and potentially inform treatment decisions,” Jones and her coauthors wrote.
Lastly, parents sought appropriate treatment and symptom relief.
Many clinicians acknowledged the benefits of a clinical decision support tool for help with evidence-based decision-making during diagnosis and to facilitate communication with families. However, they expressed skepticism over the use of diagnostics for etiology, noting that disease management was not dependent upon knowing it.
Some clinicians said many families expected a test. “Even if I don’t think that a GI [gastrointestinal] stool study is necessary, there are situations where…a family is not going to leave the [ED] happy without one. And so I probably order them sometimes when they’re not truly indicated,” a physician reported in the interview.
“That said,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, “clinicians thought that diagnostic testing for pediatric diarrhea was generally not warranted, except in unique cases [such as] bloody stools, prolonged duration of diarrhea, or travel history.”
Many clinicians thought a decision-making tool might help build trust and rapport with the patient’s family, reassuring them their child is getting evidence-based care.
“It just adds to that shared decision-making model. I think it adds trust…I think it does kind of back up our ability to defend why we’re doing what we’re doing,” reported one surveyed ED physician.
Parents were mostly wary of the potential use of a clinical decision-making tool. Jones and colleagues reported that in addition to some clinicians, “several parents expressed concerns that a tool does not account for nuances and would lead to ‘generalizing every kid’ (said the father of a child aged 1-3 years), as opposed to providing patient-centered care.”
Parents also said they worried a clinician would not reply upon their own clinical judgement if they had a diagnostic tool.
Jones and her colleagues concluded that before implementing a clinical decision support tool in pediatric diarrhea, strategies are necessary to, “resolve tension in care expectations, facilitate diagnostic stewardship, and optimize care.”
In an accompanying editorial, KC Coffey, MD, MPH, concluded that the study by Jones and colleagues suggests that adapting such tools to incorporate parental expectations, “could facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and increase acceptance of [using these tools for] decisions. Such discussions might also raise awareness of the potential harms of over testing.” Coffey is an epidemiologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Dobler, MD, who was not involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News that “as the number of available tests continues to grow, stewardship is becoming more relevant than ever. Families may not always realize the downsides of unnecessary testing — such as false positives, avoidable procedures, or added risks — and part of our responsibility is to help them understand both the potential benefits and the potential harms of these tests.”
Dobler is the medical director for clinical decision support in the Department of Clinical Informatics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago.
Clinical decision support tools are helpful in the clinical setting, Dobler said because “they give providers quick access to the most relevant information needed for decision-making. This includes patient-specific details — symptoms, history, labs, and vitals” as well as the characteristics and downsides of the tests. In an ideal world, she said, clinicians would consider these data for every patient.
Dobler cautioned however, that, “it’s important to stress that these tools don’t replace clinical judgment — the provider still evaluates the patient, considers the clinical context, and incorporates the family’s preferences. But as a complement to that process, I believe these tools are very valuable.”
Lastly, Dobler said that transparency is key to helping parents overcome their hesitancy regarding these tools.
Jones, Coffey, and Dobler reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Are Probiotics for Pouchitis Prevention Worth the Cost?
, but its cost-effectiveness depends on relapse risk and may only be justified in patients who experience frequent relapses of pouchitis, a new analysis showed.
“Our findings highlight that while probiotic treatments can reduce the risk of this complication, their high costs limit their overall value for most patients,” lead author Gaurav Syal, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, said in a statement.
“Our analysis can help guide shared decision-making between patients, clinicians, and payers to ensure resources are used where they can provide the most benefit,” Syal added.
The study was published online in Gastro Hep Advances.
Common Complication After Ulcerative Colitis Surgery
Pouchitis is a common complication in patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA, with a cumulative incidence of around 48% at 2 years and 80% at 30 years.
Many patients who experience pouchitis have a single episode and respond well to short antibiotic courses. However, others develop recurrent or relapsing pouchitis, and 17% progress to a chronic form that can become dependent on antibiotics or refractory to antibiotics.
An eight-strain probiotic was shown to be effective in primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Syal and colleagues sought to determine whether it’s worth the cost.
They constructed decision-tree models with Markov simulations to compare the risk for initial development and recurrence of pouchitis over a 2-year period between no prophylaxis and daily use of the eight-strain probiotic.
In the primary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 2 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin-tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 4 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was initially the same as the primary prophylaxis model with the addition of vedolizumab and infliximab.
Costs were calculated from a US third-party payer perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For primary prevention, the probiotic slightly increased QALYs compared with no probiotic (0.927 vs 0.918) but at a far higher cost ($2223 vs $299), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $236,076 per QALY — well above the accepted threshold.
In patients with infrequent relapses, probiotic use was slightly more effective than no use of probiotic (cumulative QALYs, 1.26 vs 1.24) but more expensive ($3370 vs $557), yielding an ICER of $153,011 per QALY — again above the accepted threshold.
However, sensitivity analyses revealed that the probiotic was cost-effective in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis — defined as two or more episodes per year.
In this subgroup, the ICER dropped below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, and in some scenarios, the probiotic even became the dominant strategy, meaning it was both more effective and less costly than no prophylaxis, the researchers noted.
Current guidelines from AGA on managing pouchitis suggest using probiotics to prevent recurrent episodes of pouchitis with a caveat that those who experience infrequent episodes may choose to avoid secondary prevention strategies.
“Our findings supplement the guidelines by confirming that the eight-strain probiotics can be cost-effective in frequent relapsing not in infrequent relapsing pouchitis,” the authors wrote.
They also noted that the probiotic cost itself was the biggest driver of results, accounting for 95% of the total cost in the primary prevention model. According to their analysis, reducing its price by half could make it a cost-effective option more broadly.
They also noted that probiotic prophylaxis could be cost-effective for patients at higher-than-average risk, such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), who have 4.2 times higher odds of developing pouchitis than peers without PSC.
But they cautioned that “further research is warranted on the effectiveness of the eight-strain probiotic for primary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis and IPAA and PSC.”
The study had no financial support. Syal reported receiving research support from Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, but its cost-effectiveness depends on relapse risk and may only be justified in patients who experience frequent relapses of pouchitis, a new analysis showed.
“Our findings highlight that while probiotic treatments can reduce the risk of this complication, their high costs limit their overall value for most patients,” lead author Gaurav Syal, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, said in a statement.
“Our analysis can help guide shared decision-making between patients, clinicians, and payers to ensure resources are used where they can provide the most benefit,” Syal added.
The study was published online in Gastro Hep Advances.
Common Complication After Ulcerative Colitis Surgery
Pouchitis is a common complication in patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA, with a cumulative incidence of around 48% at 2 years and 80% at 30 years.
Many patients who experience pouchitis have a single episode and respond well to short antibiotic courses. However, others develop recurrent or relapsing pouchitis, and 17% progress to a chronic form that can become dependent on antibiotics or refractory to antibiotics.
An eight-strain probiotic was shown to be effective in primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Syal and colleagues sought to determine whether it’s worth the cost.
They constructed decision-tree models with Markov simulations to compare the risk for initial development and recurrence of pouchitis over a 2-year period between no prophylaxis and daily use of the eight-strain probiotic.
In the primary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 2 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin-tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 4 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was initially the same as the primary prophylaxis model with the addition of vedolizumab and infliximab.
Costs were calculated from a US third-party payer perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For primary prevention, the probiotic slightly increased QALYs compared with no probiotic (0.927 vs 0.918) but at a far higher cost ($2223 vs $299), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $236,076 per QALY — well above the accepted threshold.
In patients with infrequent relapses, probiotic use was slightly more effective than no use of probiotic (cumulative QALYs, 1.26 vs 1.24) but more expensive ($3370 vs $557), yielding an ICER of $153,011 per QALY — again above the accepted threshold.
However, sensitivity analyses revealed that the probiotic was cost-effective in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis — defined as two or more episodes per year.
In this subgroup, the ICER dropped below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, and in some scenarios, the probiotic even became the dominant strategy, meaning it was both more effective and less costly than no prophylaxis, the researchers noted.
Current guidelines from AGA on managing pouchitis suggest using probiotics to prevent recurrent episodes of pouchitis with a caveat that those who experience infrequent episodes may choose to avoid secondary prevention strategies.
“Our findings supplement the guidelines by confirming that the eight-strain probiotics can be cost-effective in frequent relapsing not in infrequent relapsing pouchitis,” the authors wrote.
They also noted that the probiotic cost itself was the biggest driver of results, accounting for 95% of the total cost in the primary prevention model. According to their analysis, reducing its price by half could make it a cost-effective option more broadly.
They also noted that probiotic prophylaxis could be cost-effective for patients at higher-than-average risk, such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), who have 4.2 times higher odds of developing pouchitis than peers without PSC.
But they cautioned that “further research is warranted on the effectiveness of the eight-strain probiotic for primary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis and IPAA and PSC.”
The study had no financial support. Syal reported receiving research support from Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, but its cost-effectiveness depends on relapse risk and may only be justified in patients who experience frequent relapses of pouchitis, a new analysis showed.
“Our findings highlight that while probiotic treatments can reduce the risk of this complication, their high costs limit their overall value for most patients,” lead author Gaurav Syal, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, said in a statement.
“Our analysis can help guide shared decision-making between patients, clinicians, and payers to ensure resources are used where they can provide the most benefit,” Syal added.
The study was published online in Gastro Hep Advances.
Common Complication After Ulcerative Colitis Surgery
Pouchitis is a common complication in patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA, with a cumulative incidence of around 48% at 2 years and 80% at 30 years.
Many patients who experience pouchitis have a single episode and respond well to short antibiotic courses. However, others develop recurrent or relapsing pouchitis, and 17% progress to a chronic form that can become dependent on antibiotics or refractory to antibiotics.
An eight-strain probiotic was shown to be effective in primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Syal and colleagues sought to determine whether it’s worth the cost.
They constructed decision-tree models with Markov simulations to compare the risk for initial development and recurrence of pouchitis over a 2-year period between no prophylaxis and daily use of the eight-strain probiotic.
In the primary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 2 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin-tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 4 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was initially the same as the primary prophylaxis model with the addition of vedolizumab and infliximab.
Costs were calculated from a US third-party payer perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For primary prevention, the probiotic slightly increased QALYs compared with no probiotic (0.927 vs 0.918) but at a far higher cost ($2223 vs $299), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $236,076 per QALY — well above the accepted threshold.
In patients with infrequent relapses, probiotic use was slightly more effective than no use of probiotic (cumulative QALYs, 1.26 vs 1.24) but more expensive ($3370 vs $557), yielding an ICER of $153,011 per QALY — again above the accepted threshold.
However, sensitivity analyses revealed that the probiotic was cost-effective in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis — defined as two or more episodes per year.
In this subgroup, the ICER dropped below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, and in some scenarios, the probiotic even became the dominant strategy, meaning it was both more effective and less costly than no prophylaxis, the researchers noted.
Current guidelines from AGA on managing pouchitis suggest using probiotics to prevent recurrent episodes of pouchitis with a caveat that those who experience infrequent episodes may choose to avoid secondary prevention strategies.
“Our findings supplement the guidelines by confirming that the eight-strain probiotics can be cost-effective in frequent relapsing not in infrequent relapsing pouchitis,” the authors wrote.
They also noted that the probiotic cost itself was the biggest driver of results, accounting for 95% of the total cost in the primary prevention model. According to their analysis, reducing its price by half could make it a cost-effective option more broadly.
They also noted that probiotic prophylaxis could be cost-effective for patients at higher-than-average risk, such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), who have 4.2 times higher odds of developing pouchitis than peers without PSC.
But they cautioned that “further research is warranted on the effectiveness of the eight-strain probiotic for primary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis and IPAA and PSC.”
The study had no financial support. Syal reported receiving research support from Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Military Background Shapes Eating Disorders in VA Oncology
Military Background Shapes Eating Disorders in VA Oncology
PHOENIX – Veterans are especially vulnerable to disordered eating because of their military backgrounds, a dietician warned US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncology clinicians at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. In fact, an estimated 15% to 25% of veterans meet diagnostic criteria for eating disorders.
“Their experience in the military probably has really shaped the way that they see weight and the stigma behind it,” said Emily Fasciana, MS, RDN, LDN, a registered dietician with the VA based in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
When cancer appears, the risk of eating disorders goes up even more, she said. “If we don’t catch eating disorders early on, severe medical problems can occur. In the cancer population, they’re going through enough medical problems as it is.”
Here are things to know about eating disorders in oncology.
Military Life Can Produce a ‘Perfect Storm’ of Risk Factors
Tightly controlled eating environments and food deprivation are often routine in military life. Along with trauma, these can create a “perfect storm of risk factors for eating disorders,” Fasciana said.
During service, for example, “people often will eat as much as they can when they can, sometimes followed by days of not being able to eat,” she said. These are very much like disordered eating behaviors such as binge eating and restricting, and they can place veterans at greater risk.”
She described how service members can develop specific eating patterns during service, such as “midrats” – midnight rations – “meals served during midnight shifts that were the best meal served all day long that they had access to.”
“When I hear veterans who wake up in the middle of the night, and they’re eating, I ask: ‘Did they practice something similar during their military experience?’ They associate that time of the day with enjoyable comfort foods, and that’s what they go to now.”
Vets Can be Haunted by Stigma of Excess Weight
“Making weight” – meeting weight standards – is routine in the military. The pressure to remain under a certain level can have lasting effects on how veterans think about extra pounds, said Kaitlin Ohde, PhD, a clinical health psychologist with the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle.
“I’ve heard some veterans tell me about getting kicked out of positions because of not being able to make weight. Then they carry this throughout their life, which is really sad,” Ohde said. “When they gain weight during treatment, sometimes it can be really bothersome for them.”
Regular weigh-ins can trouble patients, she said, so it’s important to explain to them why they’re getting on scales: “I’m getting your weight today because I want to see if this medication is doing XYZ.”
She advised colleagues to “make sure they explicitly know why we’re doing it [measuring weight], and how the things we’re using to treat them can impact their weight. This piece of the puzzle sometimes falls off the radar.”
Eating Disorders Can be Catastrophic in Cancer
Untreated eating disorders cause severe medical complications such as malnutrition, hormone dysregulation, low bone density or fractures, bradycardia, gastroparesis, and even anemia, Fasciana said.
There’s a New Category of Eating Disorder
Fasciana highlighted a condition that is underrecognized in oncology: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), which refers to patients who stay away from certain foods but not because they’re worried about body image or weight gain. “Patients with ARFID are clinically distinct from those who have anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder,” she noted.
ARFID diagnosis requires food avoidance that leads to at least 1 of these consequences: significant weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, dependence on supplements or tube feeding, or psychosocial impairment.
“Veterans might have a gagging or retching reflex at the sight or smell of certain foods,” Fasciana explained. “They might have difficulty being in the presence of another person eating a nonpreferred food.”
Some cancer patients may be averse to foods of certain temperatures. “You might need to assess why they don’t like the temperature of that food. Why are those foods something that you can’t go to? Are they hurting your teeth? What are they doing to you?”
ARFID patients may also experience social withdrawal around eating. “With a lot of our head and neck cancer patients, especially those with oral cancers and those on feeding tubes, they might feel embarrassed to be around people while eating,” Fasciana said.
She highlighted a 2021 report about 4 cancer survivors with upper abdominal cancers who developed new-onset eating disorders with malnutrition resembling ARFID.
The patients experienced malabsorption, dumping syndrome, and excessive weight loss for 12 months postoperatively without classic body-image concerns. “This is a case example of how eating disorders can evolve in the oncology population,” Fasciana said.
The report said that none of the patients “returned to a healthy weight and/or healthy eating despite extensive team input… The outcomes were poor; 1 patient died, another required admission to a specialist eating disorder admission with a subsequent relapsing-remitting course, and the remaining 2 had complicated chronic courses.”
Treatment: Start With Screening, Then Reframe Thinking
Fasciana highlighted several screening tools, such as SCOFF, BREDS, and one for ARFID.
“Any screen is going to be better than no screen at all, and any question is going to be better than no question at all,” Fasciana said.
She cautioned that “veterans are not going to be so forthcoming about some of their struggles due to stigma and shame because of their past experiences in the military.”
As for therapy, psychological care may not be required, Ohde said. And it’s especially important to “listen to your patients about what they’re going through, and give them space to share.”
For those who could be helped by psychotherapy, she said, “sometimes I introduce it as therapy that can be really brief. Maybe you just need to talk to someone for a few sessions or just get some support around coping with this.”
One strategy is to focus on bringing enjoyment back to eating, she said. For some patients, “eating becomes a chore,” a task performed without joy, alone in a hospital room.
Fasciana emphasized asking questions over time, perhaps through multiple follow-ups, without expecting answers immediately. And she coaxes patients to consider what they hold dear. “I try to get them to think about the meaning that losing or gaining weight has for them, what their values are, and what really matters to them. I link it back to health, healing, and longevity of life.”
Fasciana and Ohde reported they had no disclosures.
PHOENIX – Veterans are especially vulnerable to disordered eating because of their military backgrounds, a dietician warned US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncology clinicians at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. In fact, an estimated 15% to 25% of veterans meet diagnostic criteria for eating disorders.
“Their experience in the military probably has really shaped the way that they see weight and the stigma behind it,” said Emily Fasciana, MS, RDN, LDN, a registered dietician with the VA based in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
When cancer appears, the risk of eating disorders goes up even more, she said. “If we don’t catch eating disorders early on, severe medical problems can occur. In the cancer population, they’re going through enough medical problems as it is.”
Here are things to know about eating disorders in oncology.
Military Life Can Produce a ‘Perfect Storm’ of Risk Factors
Tightly controlled eating environments and food deprivation are often routine in military life. Along with trauma, these can create a “perfect storm of risk factors for eating disorders,” Fasciana said.
During service, for example, “people often will eat as much as they can when they can, sometimes followed by days of not being able to eat,” she said. These are very much like disordered eating behaviors such as binge eating and restricting, and they can place veterans at greater risk.”
She described how service members can develop specific eating patterns during service, such as “midrats” – midnight rations – “meals served during midnight shifts that were the best meal served all day long that they had access to.”
“When I hear veterans who wake up in the middle of the night, and they’re eating, I ask: ‘Did they practice something similar during their military experience?’ They associate that time of the day with enjoyable comfort foods, and that’s what they go to now.”
Vets Can be Haunted by Stigma of Excess Weight
“Making weight” – meeting weight standards – is routine in the military. The pressure to remain under a certain level can have lasting effects on how veterans think about extra pounds, said Kaitlin Ohde, PhD, a clinical health psychologist with the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle.
“I’ve heard some veterans tell me about getting kicked out of positions because of not being able to make weight. Then they carry this throughout their life, which is really sad,” Ohde said. “When they gain weight during treatment, sometimes it can be really bothersome for them.”
Regular weigh-ins can trouble patients, she said, so it’s important to explain to them why they’re getting on scales: “I’m getting your weight today because I want to see if this medication is doing XYZ.”
She advised colleagues to “make sure they explicitly know why we’re doing it [measuring weight], and how the things we’re using to treat them can impact their weight. This piece of the puzzle sometimes falls off the radar.”
Eating Disorders Can be Catastrophic in Cancer
Untreated eating disorders cause severe medical complications such as malnutrition, hormone dysregulation, low bone density or fractures, bradycardia, gastroparesis, and even anemia, Fasciana said.
There’s a New Category of Eating Disorder
Fasciana highlighted a condition that is underrecognized in oncology: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), which refers to patients who stay away from certain foods but not because they’re worried about body image or weight gain. “Patients with ARFID are clinically distinct from those who have anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder,” she noted.
ARFID diagnosis requires food avoidance that leads to at least 1 of these consequences: significant weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, dependence on supplements or tube feeding, or psychosocial impairment.
“Veterans might have a gagging or retching reflex at the sight or smell of certain foods,” Fasciana explained. “They might have difficulty being in the presence of another person eating a nonpreferred food.”
Some cancer patients may be averse to foods of certain temperatures. “You might need to assess why they don’t like the temperature of that food. Why are those foods something that you can’t go to? Are they hurting your teeth? What are they doing to you?”
ARFID patients may also experience social withdrawal around eating. “With a lot of our head and neck cancer patients, especially those with oral cancers and those on feeding tubes, they might feel embarrassed to be around people while eating,” Fasciana said.
She highlighted a 2021 report about 4 cancer survivors with upper abdominal cancers who developed new-onset eating disorders with malnutrition resembling ARFID.
The patients experienced malabsorption, dumping syndrome, and excessive weight loss for 12 months postoperatively without classic body-image concerns. “This is a case example of how eating disorders can evolve in the oncology population,” Fasciana said.
The report said that none of the patients “returned to a healthy weight and/or healthy eating despite extensive team input… The outcomes were poor; 1 patient died, another required admission to a specialist eating disorder admission with a subsequent relapsing-remitting course, and the remaining 2 had complicated chronic courses.”
Treatment: Start With Screening, Then Reframe Thinking
Fasciana highlighted several screening tools, such as SCOFF, BREDS, and one for ARFID.
“Any screen is going to be better than no screen at all, and any question is going to be better than no question at all,” Fasciana said.
She cautioned that “veterans are not going to be so forthcoming about some of their struggles due to stigma and shame because of their past experiences in the military.”
As for therapy, psychological care may not be required, Ohde said. And it’s especially important to “listen to your patients about what they’re going through, and give them space to share.”
For those who could be helped by psychotherapy, she said, “sometimes I introduce it as therapy that can be really brief. Maybe you just need to talk to someone for a few sessions or just get some support around coping with this.”
One strategy is to focus on bringing enjoyment back to eating, she said. For some patients, “eating becomes a chore,” a task performed without joy, alone in a hospital room.
Fasciana emphasized asking questions over time, perhaps through multiple follow-ups, without expecting answers immediately. And she coaxes patients to consider what they hold dear. “I try to get them to think about the meaning that losing or gaining weight has for them, what their values are, and what really matters to them. I link it back to health, healing, and longevity of life.”
Fasciana and Ohde reported they had no disclosures.
PHOENIX – Veterans are especially vulnerable to disordered eating because of their military backgrounds, a dietician warned US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) oncology clinicians at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. In fact, an estimated 15% to 25% of veterans meet diagnostic criteria for eating disorders.
“Their experience in the military probably has really shaped the way that they see weight and the stigma behind it,” said Emily Fasciana, MS, RDN, LDN, a registered dietician with the VA based in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
When cancer appears, the risk of eating disorders goes up even more, she said. “If we don’t catch eating disorders early on, severe medical problems can occur. In the cancer population, they’re going through enough medical problems as it is.”
Here are things to know about eating disorders in oncology.
Military Life Can Produce a ‘Perfect Storm’ of Risk Factors
Tightly controlled eating environments and food deprivation are often routine in military life. Along with trauma, these can create a “perfect storm of risk factors for eating disorders,” Fasciana said.
During service, for example, “people often will eat as much as they can when they can, sometimes followed by days of not being able to eat,” she said. These are very much like disordered eating behaviors such as binge eating and restricting, and they can place veterans at greater risk.”
She described how service members can develop specific eating patterns during service, such as “midrats” – midnight rations – “meals served during midnight shifts that were the best meal served all day long that they had access to.”
“When I hear veterans who wake up in the middle of the night, and they’re eating, I ask: ‘Did they practice something similar during their military experience?’ They associate that time of the day with enjoyable comfort foods, and that’s what they go to now.”
Vets Can be Haunted by Stigma of Excess Weight
“Making weight” – meeting weight standards – is routine in the military. The pressure to remain under a certain level can have lasting effects on how veterans think about extra pounds, said Kaitlin Ohde, PhD, a clinical health psychologist with the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in Seattle.
“I’ve heard some veterans tell me about getting kicked out of positions because of not being able to make weight. Then they carry this throughout their life, which is really sad,” Ohde said. “When they gain weight during treatment, sometimes it can be really bothersome for them.”
Regular weigh-ins can trouble patients, she said, so it’s important to explain to them why they’re getting on scales: “I’m getting your weight today because I want to see if this medication is doing XYZ.”
She advised colleagues to “make sure they explicitly know why we’re doing it [measuring weight], and how the things we’re using to treat them can impact their weight. This piece of the puzzle sometimes falls off the radar.”
Eating Disorders Can be Catastrophic in Cancer
Untreated eating disorders cause severe medical complications such as malnutrition, hormone dysregulation, low bone density or fractures, bradycardia, gastroparesis, and even anemia, Fasciana said.
There’s a New Category of Eating Disorder
Fasciana highlighted a condition that is underrecognized in oncology: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), which refers to patients who stay away from certain foods but not because they’re worried about body image or weight gain. “Patients with ARFID are clinically distinct from those who have anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating disorder,” she noted.
ARFID diagnosis requires food avoidance that leads to at least 1 of these consequences: significant weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, dependence on supplements or tube feeding, or psychosocial impairment.
“Veterans might have a gagging or retching reflex at the sight or smell of certain foods,” Fasciana explained. “They might have difficulty being in the presence of another person eating a nonpreferred food.”
Some cancer patients may be averse to foods of certain temperatures. “You might need to assess why they don’t like the temperature of that food. Why are those foods something that you can’t go to? Are they hurting your teeth? What are they doing to you?”
ARFID patients may also experience social withdrawal around eating. “With a lot of our head and neck cancer patients, especially those with oral cancers and those on feeding tubes, they might feel embarrassed to be around people while eating,” Fasciana said.
She highlighted a 2021 report about 4 cancer survivors with upper abdominal cancers who developed new-onset eating disorders with malnutrition resembling ARFID.
The patients experienced malabsorption, dumping syndrome, and excessive weight loss for 12 months postoperatively without classic body-image concerns. “This is a case example of how eating disorders can evolve in the oncology population,” Fasciana said.
The report said that none of the patients “returned to a healthy weight and/or healthy eating despite extensive team input… The outcomes were poor; 1 patient died, another required admission to a specialist eating disorder admission with a subsequent relapsing-remitting course, and the remaining 2 had complicated chronic courses.”
Treatment: Start With Screening, Then Reframe Thinking
Fasciana highlighted several screening tools, such as SCOFF, BREDS, and one for ARFID.
“Any screen is going to be better than no screen at all, and any question is going to be better than no question at all,” Fasciana said.
She cautioned that “veterans are not going to be so forthcoming about some of their struggles due to stigma and shame because of their past experiences in the military.”
As for therapy, psychological care may not be required, Ohde said. And it’s especially important to “listen to your patients about what they’re going through, and give them space to share.”
For those who could be helped by psychotherapy, she said, “sometimes I introduce it as therapy that can be really brief. Maybe you just need to talk to someone for a few sessions or just get some support around coping with this.”
One strategy is to focus on bringing enjoyment back to eating, she said. For some patients, “eating becomes a chore,” a task performed without joy, alone in a hospital room.
Fasciana emphasized asking questions over time, perhaps through multiple follow-ups, without expecting answers immediately. And she coaxes patients to consider what they hold dear. “I try to get them to think about the meaning that losing or gaining weight has for them, what their values are, and what really matters to them. I link it back to health, healing, and longevity of life.”
Fasciana and Ohde reported they had no disclosures.
Military Background Shapes Eating Disorders in VA Oncology
Military Background Shapes Eating Disorders in VA Oncology
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ORLANDO, Fl — , new data suggested.
H pylori infection is a leading risk factor for gastric carcinoma, accounting for as many as 90% of cases. As the new data show, failure to screen routinely for the bacteria could be leading to younger people developing easily preventable forms of gastric cancer, experts said.
“The most concerning and the most interesting finding for us was we found higher prevalence” of gastric cancer linked to H pylori in the younger group, Neel Patel, MD, MPH, with the Department of Pathology at Staten Island University Hospital in Staten Island, New York, told GI & Hepatology News.
“This does not mean most patients are young. Rather, it means H pylori increases the likelihood of gastric cancer appearing earlier in life compared with non-H pylori cases.”
For the study, Patel and his colleagues, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2025, used 2016-2020 data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, which included records for adults with primary diagnoses of gastric cancer. They looked at outcomes of those whose cancer was associated with H pylori compared with the non-H pylori group.
Among 91,670 adult hospitalizations, 1830 (2%) had gastric cancer linked to H pylori (2016-2020). Patel said the low percentage resulted from focusing solely on diagnostic codes for primary diagnoses of gastric cancer and excluding secondary diagnoses.
These cancers were twice as prevalent in patients aged 18-49 years (3.97%) as in those older than 65 years (1.65%).
Septicemia Odds Higher in H pylori Group
Patients in the H pylori group also had a higher burden of comorbidities such as anemia, chronic blood loss, and metastatic cancer, according to the data. The researcher found these patients also had significantly higher odds of septicemia (odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.24; P = .003) and spent an average of 8 days in the hospital — two more than those with cancers not associated with the infection.
Dipti M. Karamchandani, MD, a professor of pathology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not part of the study, said the longer hospital stays and greater risk for septicemia may be related to increased comorbidities among people who get H pylori infection in general. The infection often is caused by unsanitary conditions, and the groups infected may also be more likely to experience malnutrition, anemia, or lower body reserves, for example, she said.
“Also, H pylori often causes gastric ulcers, even before causing cancer, and those patients may be prone to chronic blood loss,” Karamchandani said. “These are all reasons that these patients may be more prone to longer hospital stay.”
US Guidelines Lacking
H pylori infection is a strong predictor of gastric cancer, but it often goes undetected. “Sometimes we ignore the symptoms,” Patel said.
“There are no standard guidelines for screening for H pylori,” he added. “We need to stop the transition from H pylori to gastric cancer.”
“This abstract highlights an important issue: Gastric cancer is rising among younger adults in the US, particularly in noncardia gastric cancer, which is most often associated with Helicobacter pylori infection,” said Chul S. Hyun, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the Gastric Cancer Prevention and Screening Program at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.
Hyun said the 2% of patients in the study diagnosed with gastric cancer associated with H pylori likely reflected undercoding and “incomplete capture” in the database and noted that subgroup comparisons “become difficult to interpret reliably.” By extension, the findings also underscore, “We are not adequately capturing H pylori in routine US coding and claims.”
“What we do know is that H pylori is the central, modifiable driver of risk, and that prevention efforts should focus on high prevalence populations — including Asian, Hispanic, and immigrant communities — where systematic H pylori screening remains a major unmet need,” said Hyun, who was not involved in the new research.
Currently no US society guideline recommends systematic screening, Hyun said. “Other high-incidence countries, such as Japan and Korea, already incorporate H pylori and gastroscopy screening into national policy,” he said. “For these reasons, guidelines urgently need to evolve to recommend targeted H pylori screening in high prevalence groups.”
Patel, Karamchandani, and Hyun reported having no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Helicobacter pylori May Shift Gastric Cancer Earlier
Don't Treat Investigational Cancer Drugs Like Other Medications
Don't Treat Investigational Cancer Drugs Like Other Medications
PHOENIX – Medications used in oncology clinical trials pose unique challenges in areas such as labeling, packaging, and administration, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacist cautioned colleagues, and placebos have special needs too.
Even basic safety protections can be lacking when a drug is investigational, said Emily Hennes, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacy specialist for research at William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Shorewood Hills, Wisconsin, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“All of the safety features that we have come to know and love in dispensing commercial drugs are absent. There’s no Tall Man lettering, there's no color differentiation, and there's no barcoding, because these are not registered drugs," she said.
A 2017 report found that 81% of pharmacists surveyed indicated some level of concern regarding the safety risk in using investigational drugs. At the same time, Hennes noted, the Joint Commission has mandated that pharmacists must control the storage, dispensing, labeling, and distribution of investigational medications.
Here are things to know about the use of investigational cancer drugs:
Drug Interactions Are Common
Hennes highlighted a 2023 study of medication reconciliation of 501 patients in 79 clinical trials that found alarming levels of drug interactions:
• 360 clinically relevant drug-drug interactions were identified among 189 patients, including 158 therapies that were prohibited by protocols. Of these, 57.7% involved cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved in metabolism.
• Reconciliation revealed that 35.2% of medications were not otherwise known or documented.
• A median of 2 previously unknown therapies per patient was discovered in 74% of patients.
• Alternative medicine products such as supplements and over-the-counter drugs were implicated in 60% of identified drug interactions.
• Only 41% of oncologists discussed alternative medicine use with patients, which Hennes attributed to “lack of familiarity with many alternative medicine products or insufficient training.”
To make things more complicated, “We sometimes don’t know the full pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of an investigational agent,” she said.
Naming and Labeling May Not Be Standard
Investigational products may not have genetic names and instead have an alphanumeric identifier such as INV54826 that can be quite similar to other products, she said. Investigational drugs may even go through name changes, forcing pharmacists to be alerted to protect patients.
In addition, labeling may not be standardized. Drugs may arrive unlabeled, with the wrong volume and size, and lack of barcoding. In some cases, pharmacists choose to put new, patient-friendly labels on these products, Hennes said.
Information Distribution is Key
“Something that comes up in our practice quite a bit is that there’s no standard drug reference regarding investigational drugs,” Hennes said. “Finding ways to get key information to staff at the point of care is really critical to make sure we’re able to safely treat our patients.”
Precautions May Be Needed to Maintain Blinding Protocols
Hennes explained that pharmacists must use opaque brown bag covers to maintain blinding when parenteral products have distinctive colors. Lines may have to be covered too, which can create challenges during administration.
“Pumps aren’t meant to run lines that are covered,” she said, which can lead to jams. “If you don’t do education with your point of care staff, it can cause a lot of confusion.”
It’s also important for blinding purposes to keep an eye on how long it takes to prepare a treatment, she said. A study’s integrity, for example, could be violated if a complex investigational product takes an hour to equilibrate to room temperature and 20-30 minutes to prepare, while a placebo only requires “drawing a few mils of saline out of a bag and labeling it.”
Education for Patients Can Be Useful
Hennes urged colleagues to remind patients to save investigational medication at the end of each cycle and return it to the clinic site for accountability.
She also suggested creating treatment calendars/reminders for patients and discussing
Hennes reported no disclosures.
PHOENIX – Medications used in oncology clinical trials pose unique challenges in areas such as labeling, packaging, and administration, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacist cautioned colleagues, and placebos have special needs too.
Even basic safety protections can be lacking when a drug is investigational, said Emily Hennes, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacy specialist for research at William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Shorewood Hills, Wisconsin, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“All of the safety features that we have come to know and love in dispensing commercial drugs are absent. There’s no Tall Man lettering, there's no color differentiation, and there's no barcoding, because these are not registered drugs," she said.
A 2017 report found that 81% of pharmacists surveyed indicated some level of concern regarding the safety risk in using investigational drugs. At the same time, Hennes noted, the Joint Commission has mandated that pharmacists must control the storage, dispensing, labeling, and distribution of investigational medications.
Here are things to know about the use of investigational cancer drugs:
Drug Interactions Are Common
Hennes highlighted a 2023 study of medication reconciliation of 501 patients in 79 clinical trials that found alarming levels of drug interactions:
• 360 clinically relevant drug-drug interactions were identified among 189 patients, including 158 therapies that were prohibited by protocols. Of these, 57.7% involved cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved in metabolism.
• Reconciliation revealed that 35.2% of medications were not otherwise known or documented.
• A median of 2 previously unknown therapies per patient was discovered in 74% of patients.
• Alternative medicine products such as supplements and over-the-counter drugs were implicated in 60% of identified drug interactions.
• Only 41% of oncologists discussed alternative medicine use with patients, which Hennes attributed to “lack of familiarity with many alternative medicine products or insufficient training.”
To make things more complicated, “We sometimes don’t know the full pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of an investigational agent,” she said.
Naming and Labeling May Not Be Standard
Investigational products may not have genetic names and instead have an alphanumeric identifier such as INV54826 that can be quite similar to other products, she said. Investigational drugs may even go through name changes, forcing pharmacists to be alerted to protect patients.
In addition, labeling may not be standardized. Drugs may arrive unlabeled, with the wrong volume and size, and lack of barcoding. In some cases, pharmacists choose to put new, patient-friendly labels on these products, Hennes said.
Information Distribution is Key
“Something that comes up in our practice quite a bit is that there’s no standard drug reference regarding investigational drugs,” Hennes said. “Finding ways to get key information to staff at the point of care is really critical to make sure we’re able to safely treat our patients.”
Precautions May Be Needed to Maintain Blinding Protocols
Hennes explained that pharmacists must use opaque brown bag covers to maintain blinding when parenteral products have distinctive colors. Lines may have to be covered too, which can create challenges during administration.
“Pumps aren’t meant to run lines that are covered,” she said, which can lead to jams. “If you don’t do education with your point of care staff, it can cause a lot of confusion.”
It’s also important for blinding purposes to keep an eye on how long it takes to prepare a treatment, she said. A study’s integrity, for example, could be violated if a complex investigational product takes an hour to equilibrate to room temperature and 20-30 minutes to prepare, while a placebo only requires “drawing a few mils of saline out of a bag and labeling it.”
Education for Patients Can Be Useful
Hennes urged colleagues to remind patients to save investigational medication at the end of each cycle and return it to the clinic site for accountability.
She also suggested creating treatment calendars/reminders for patients and discussing
Hennes reported no disclosures.
PHOENIX – Medications used in oncology clinical trials pose unique challenges in areas such as labeling, packaging, and administration, a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pharmacist cautioned colleagues, and placebos have special needs too.
Even basic safety protections can be lacking when a drug is investigational, said Emily Hennes, PharmD, BCOP, clinical pharmacy specialist for research at William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital in Shorewood Hills, Wisconsin, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.
“All of the safety features that we have come to know and love in dispensing commercial drugs are absent. There’s no Tall Man lettering, there's no color differentiation, and there's no barcoding, because these are not registered drugs," she said.
A 2017 report found that 81% of pharmacists surveyed indicated some level of concern regarding the safety risk in using investigational drugs. At the same time, Hennes noted, the Joint Commission has mandated that pharmacists must control the storage, dispensing, labeling, and distribution of investigational medications.
Here are things to know about the use of investigational cancer drugs:
Drug Interactions Are Common
Hennes highlighted a 2023 study of medication reconciliation of 501 patients in 79 clinical trials that found alarming levels of drug interactions:
• 360 clinically relevant drug-drug interactions were identified among 189 patients, including 158 therapies that were prohibited by protocols. Of these, 57.7% involved cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved in metabolism.
• Reconciliation revealed that 35.2% of medications were not otherwise known or documented.
• A median of 2 previously unknown therapies per patient was discovered in 74% of patients.
• Alternative medicine products such as supplements and over-the-counter drugs were implicated in 60% of identified drug interactions.
• Only 41% of oncologists discussed alternative medicine use with patients, which Hennes attributed to “lack of familiarity with many alternative medicine products or insufficient training.”
To make things more complicated, “We sometimes don’t know the full pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of an investigational agent,” she said.
Naming and Labeling May Not Be Standard
Investigational products may not have genetic names and instead have an alphanumeric identifier such as INV54826 that can be quite similar to other products, she said. Investigational drugs may even go through name changes, forcing pharmacists to be alerted to protect patients.
In addition, labeling may not be standardized. Drugs may arrive unlabeled, with the wrong volume and size, and lack of barcoding. In some cases, pharmacists choose to put new, patient-friendly labels on these products, Hennes said.
Information Distribution is Key
“Something that comes up in our practice quite a bit is that there’s no standard drug reference regarding investigational drugs,” Hennes said. “Finding ways to get key information to staff at the point of care is really critical to make sure we’re able to safely treat our patients.”
Precautions May Be Needed to Maintain Blinding Protocols
Hennes explained that pharmacists must use opaque brown bag covers to maintain blinding when parenteral products have distinctive colors. Lines may have to be covered too, which can create challenges during administration.
“Pumps aren’t meant to run lines that are covered,” she said, which can lead to jams. “If you don’t do education with your point of care staff, it can cause a lot of confusion.”
It’s also important for blinding purposes to keep an eye on how long it takes to prepare a treatment, she said. A study’s integrity, for example, could be violated if a complex investigational product takes an hour to equilibrate to room temperature and 20-30 minutes to prepare, while a placebo only requires “drawing a few mils of saline out of a bag and labeling it.”
Education for Patients Can Be Useful
Hennes urged colleagues to remind patients to save investigational medication at the end of each cycle and return it to the clinic site for accountability.
She also suggested creating treatment calendars/reminders for patients and discussing
Hennes reported no disclosures.
Don't Treat Investigational Cancer Drugs Like Other Medications
Don't Treat Investigational Cancer Drugs Like Other Medications
High-Risk Meds Worsen Cancer Outcomes in Veterans
TOPLINE:
High-risk medications defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and captured by the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medication (GO-PIM) scale were prevalent in > one-third of veterans with solid and hematologic malignancies. Each additional GO-PIM was independently associated with higher risks for frailty at diagnosis, unplanned hospitalizations during follow-up, and death.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often use multiple chronic medications, raising risks for adverse events. Although several tools that identify PIMs have been developed that correlate with adverse cancer outcomes, their use is limited in busy oncology clinics. To improve implementation, researchers developed the GO-PIM scale using the NCCN’s list of high-risk medications.
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the national Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and electronic health records, which included 388,113 veterans newly diagnosed with solid or hematologic malignancies (median age, 69.3 years; 97.9% men; 76.1% non-Hispanic White and 17.3% Black individuals) between 2000 and 2022.
- They identified GO-PIMs using outpatient pharmacy records in the 90 days preceding cancer diagnosis. Each prescription for a specific GO-PIM was counted as one, including both individual drugs and drug classes listed in the GO-PIM scale.
- Study outcomes were frailty, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Baseline frailty at diagnosis was measured using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index. The score ranged from 0 to 1, and higher scores indicated greater frailty. Patients were classified as nonfrail (score, ≤ 0.2), mildly frail (score, > 0.2 to 0.3), or moderate-to-severely frail (score, > 0.3).
- Lung (23.7%), prostate (21.5%), and gastrointestinal (20.5%) cancers were the most common, and the most frequent stages were IV (25.4%) and II (24.4%).
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 38.0% of veterans were prescribed ≥ 1 GO-PIMs at the time of cancer diagnosis, and the proportion increased to 56.1% among those with moderate-to-severe frailty.
- The most commonly prescribed classes of PIMs were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12.0%), opioids (10.4%), benzodiazepines (9.2%), and corticosteroids (9.2%). Among individual drugs, sertraline was the most common SSRI (4.3%), tramadol the most common opioid (5.3%), lorazepam the most common benzodiazepine (2.5%), and prednisone the most common corticosteroid (4.9%). Trends over time showed a steady increase in opioid prescriptions, peaking in 2014, followed by a subsequent decline, while prescriptions of benzodiazepines declined during the later years.
- After adjusting for age, cancer type and stage, and other covariates, each additional GO-PIM was associated with a 66% higher odds of mild or moderate-to-severe frailty at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66).
- After adjusting for frailty and covariates, each additional GO-PIM at diagnosis was associated with increased risks for unplanned hospitalizations and death (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.08 and 1.07, respectively). These associations remained stable in sensitivity analyses that restricted GO-PIMs to scheduled medications only, focused on patients who had initiated cancer treatment, and included only those aged ≥ 65 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“Whether prescribed for supportive oncology care or for coexisting medical conditions, high-risk medications identified as PIMs should be reviewed and optimized in patients with cancer,” the authors of the study wrote.
“GO-PIMs offers a streamlined, oncology-specific approach to identifying high-risk prescribing, and complements existing efforts to improve supportive care, especially for older, frail patients,” remarked Mostafa R. Mohamed, MBBCH, PhD, MSc, and Erika E. Ramsdale, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York in an invited commentary. “The next step lies in integrating tools such as GO-PIMs into everyday practice not only to flag high risk medications but also to support actionable changes in treatment planning and patient management, such as deprescribing,” they concluded.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Jennifer La, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
Prescription chronicity before or after follow-up was not measured and actual medication adherence could not be confirmed. Residual confounding by comorbidity could have existed, and the cross-sectional nature of linking GO-PIMs with frailty might have limited causal inference. Additionally, prescriptions were measured within Veterans Affairs pharmacy data, potentially underestimating GO-PIM prevalence, and the predominantly male population limited generalizability to gynecologic cancers.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants and rewards from the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High-risk medications defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and captured by the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medication (GO-PIM) scale were prevalent in > one-third of veterans with solid and hematologic malignancies. Each additional GO-PIM was independently associated with higher risks for frailty at diagnosis, unplanned hospitalizations during follow-up, and death.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often use multiple chronic medications, raising risks for adverse events. Although several tools that identify PIMs have been developed that correlate with adverse cancer outcomes, their use is limited in busy oncology clinics. To improve implementation, researchers developed the GO-PIM scale using the NCCN’s list of high-risk medications.
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the national Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and electronic health records, which included 388,113 veterans newly diagnosed with solid or hematologic malignancies (median age, 69.3 years; 97.9% men; 76.1% non-Hispanic White and 17.3% Black individuals) between 2000 and 2022.
- They identified GO-PIMs using outpatient pharmacy records in the 90 days preceding cancer diagnosis. Each prescription for a specific GO-PIM was counted as one, including both individual drugs and drug classes listed in the GO-PIM scale.
- Study outcomes were frailty, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Baseline frailty at diagnosis was measured using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index. The score ranged from 0 to 1, and higher scores indicated greater frailty. Patients were classified as nonfrail (score, ≤ 0.2), mildly frail (score, > 0.2 to 0.3), or moderate-to-severely frail (score, > 0.3).
- Lung (23.7%), prostate (21.5%), and gastrointestinal (20.5%) cancers were the most common, and the most frequent stages were IV (25.4%) and II (24.4%).
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 38.0% of veterans were prescribed ≥ 1 GO-PIMs at the time of cancer diagnosis, and the proportion increased to 56.1% among those with moderate-to-severe frailty.
- The most commonly prescribed classes of PIMs were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12.0%), opioids (10.4%), benzodiazepines (9.2%), and corticosteroids (9.2%). Among individual drugs, sertraline was the most common SSRI (4.3%), tramadol the most common opioid (5.3%), lorazepam the most common benzodiazepine (2.5%), and prednisone the most common corticosteroid (4.9%). Trends over time showed a steady increase in opioid prescriptions, peaking in 2014, followed by a subsequent decline, while prescriptions of benzodiazepines declined during the later years.
- After adjusting for age, cancer type and stage, and other covariates, each additional GO-PIM was associated with a 66% higher odds of mild or moderate-to-severe frailty at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66).
- After adjusting for frailty and covariates, each additional GO-PIM at diagnosis was associated with increased risks for unplanned hospitalizations and death (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.08 and 1.07, respectively). These associations remained stable in sensitivity analyses that restricted GO-PIMs to scheduled medications only, focused on patients who had initiated cancer treatment, and included only those aged ≥ 65 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“Whether prescribed for supportive oncology care or for coexisting medical conditions, high-risk medications identified as PIMs should be reviewed and optimized in patients with cancer,” the authors of the study wrote.
“GO-PIMs offers a streamlined, oncology-specific approach to identifying high-risk prescribing, and complements existing efforts to improve supportive care, especially for older, frail patients,” remarked Mostafa R. Mohamed, MBBCH, PhD, MSc, and Erika E. Ramsdale, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York in an invited commentary. “The next step lies in integrating tools such as GO-PIMs into everyday practice not only to flag high risk medications but also to support actionable changes in treatment planning and patient management, such as deprescribing,” they concluded.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Jennifer La, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
Prescription chronicity before or after follow-up was not measured and actual medication adherence could not be confirmed. Residual confounding by comorbidity could have existed, and the cross-sectional nature of linking GO-PIMs with frailty might have limited causal inference. Additionally, prescriptions were measured within Veterans Affairs pharmacy data, potentially underestimating GO-PIM prevalence, and the predominantly male population limited generalizability to gynecologic cancers.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants and rewards from the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High-risk medications defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and captured by the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medication (GO-PIM) scale were prevalent in > one-third of veterans with solid and hematologic malignancies. Each additional GO-PIM was independently associated with higher risks for frailty at diagnosis, unplanned hospitalizations during follow-up, and death.
METHODOLOGY:
- Patients with cancer often use multiple chronic medications, raising risks for adverse events. Although several tools that identify PIMs have been developed that correlate with adverse cancer outcomes, their use is limited in busy oncology clinics. To improve implementation, researchers developed the GO-PIM scale using the NCCN’s list of high-risk medications.
- Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the national Veterans Affairs Cancer Registry and electronic health records, which included 388,113 veterans newly diagnosed with solid or hematologic malignancies (median age, 69.3 years; 97.9% men; 76.1% non-Hispanic White and 17.3% Black individuals) between 2000 and 2022.
- They identified GO-PIMs using outpatient pharmacy records in the 90 days preceding cancer diagnosis. Each prescription for a specific GO-PIM was counted as one, including both individual drugs and drug classes listed in the GO-PIM scale.
- Study outcomes were frailty, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Baseline frailty at diagnosis was measured using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index. The score ranged from 0 to 1, and higher scores indicated greater frailty. Patients were classified as nonfrail (score, ≤ 0.2), mildly frail (score, > 0.2 to 0.3), or moderate-to-severely frail (score, > 0.3).
- Lung (23.7%), prostate (21.5%), and gastrointestinal (20.5%) cancers were the most common, and the most frequent stages were IV (25.4%) and II (24.4%).
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 38.0% of veterans were prescribed ≥ 1 GO-PIMs at the time of cancer diagnosis, and the proportion increased to 56.1% among those with moderate-to-severe frailty.
- The most commonly prescribed classes of PIMs were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs; 12.0%), opioids (10.4%), benzodiazepines (9.2%), and corticosteroids (9.2%). Among individual drugs, sertraline was the most common SSRI (4.3%), tramadol the most common opioid (5.3%), lorazepam the most common benzodiazepine (2.5%), and prednisone the most common corticosteroid (4.9%). Trends over time showed a steady increase in opioid prescriptions, peaking in 2014, followed by a subsequent decline, while prescriptions of benzodiazepines declined during the later years.
- After adjusting for age, cancer type and stage, and other covariates, each additional GO-PIM was associated with a 66% higher odds of mild or moderate-to-severe frailty at diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66).
- After adjusting for frailty and covariates, each additional GO-PIM at diagnosis was associated with increased risks for unplanned hospitalizations and death (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.08 and 1.07, respectively). These associations remained stable in sensitivity analyses that restricted GO-PIMs to scheduled medications only, focused on patients who had initiated cancer treatment, and included only those aged ≥ 65 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“Whether prescribed for supportive oncology care or for coexisting medical conditions, high-risk medications identified as PIMs should be reviewed and optimized in patients with cancer,” the authors of the study wrote.
“GO-PIMs offers a streamlined, oncology-specific approach to identifying high-risk prescribing, and complements existing efforts to improve supportive care, especially for older, frail patients,” remarked Mostafa R. Mohamed, MBBCH, PhD, MSc, and Erika E. Ramsdale, MD, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York in an invited commentary. “The next step lies in integrating tools such as GO-PIMs into everyday practice not only to flag high risk medications but also to support actionable changes in treatment planning and patient management, such as deprescribing,” they concluded.
SOURCE:
This study, led by Jennifer La, PhD, Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
LIMITATIONS:
Prescription chronicity before or after follow-up was not measured and actual medication adherence could not be confirmed. Residual confounding by comorbidity could have existed, and the cross-sectional nature of linking GO-PIMs with frailty might have limited causal inference. Additionally, prescriptions were measured within Veterans Affairs pharmacy data, potentially underestimating GO-PIM prevalence, and the predominantly male population limited generalizability to gynecologic cancers.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by grants and rewards from the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development, Cooperative Studies Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association. Some authors declared serving as consultants or receiving grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
1 in 10 Veterans Still Use Opioids Long After Cancer Surgery
TOPLINE:
About 1 in 10 veterans with early-stage cancer developed new persistent opioid use after curative‐intent surgery, though < 1% were diagnosed with opioid use disorder.
METHODOLOGY:
Although effective pain control during cancer treatment is vital, prescribing opioids in this context may contribute to unsafe, long-term use and related adverse outcomes. Veterans, who have higher-than-average rates of mental health and substance use disorders, may be at particular risk for adverse events from opioid use related to cancer treatment.
Researchers conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 9213 US veterans (98% men) with stage 0-III cancer who were opioid-naive and underwent curative-intent surgery at Veterans Affairs medical centers between 2015 and 2016. Prostate (n = 2594; 28%), colorectal (n = 2393; 26%), bladder (n = 2302; 25%), and lung (n = 1252; 14%) cancers were the most common.
Primary outcomes were the number of days of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids (an indicator of unsafe opioid prescribing) and new persistent opioid use, defined as receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription at 90-180 days postsurgery. Opioid‐related adverse effects, including opioid use disorder and opioid overdose, were also reported.
Overall, 6970 (76%) of the participants were prescribed opioids at some point during the baseline treatment period (30 days before through 14 days after surgery). The mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 172.5.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 4% of patients received co-prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids. The mean number of days of coprescription rose in tandem with opioid doses during the treatment period: from 0.48 days in the lowest MME quartile to 2.1 days in the highest quartile (P < .0001).
Over 1 in 10 patients (10.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Those in the highest MME quartile had a 1.6-fold greater risk of developing new persistent opioid use than those with no opioid exposure during the treatment period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; P < .001). The percentage of patients with opioid prescriptions did decline over the 13-month follow-up, but among those who continued on opioids, the daily MME remained stable (median, 20 for month 1 and 30 for month 12).
Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk for new persistent opioid use (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Additional risk factors included having bladder, colorectal, lung, or other types of cancer (vs prostate cancer); stage I-III disease (vs stage 0); age 45-64 years (vs older); lower socioeconomic status; preoperative use of nonopioid pain medication; and a baseline history of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.
Over 13 months, 72 patients (0.78%) developed opioid use disorder, 3 (0.03%) experienced nonoverdose adverse events, and no opioid overdose occurred.
IN PRACTICE:
“Although a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and associated pain syndromes will require specific pain management strategies,” the authors wrote, “efforts should be taken to mitigate long‐term opioid use and its potential adverse effects in this population. They added that “both system‐level changes that involve preoperative evaluation planning as well as increased knowledge, awareness, and education among providers and patients about the risk of long‐term opioid use can guide strategies for effective and safe pain management.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
Opioid prescriptions outside the Veterans Affairs system were not captured. The study was based on filled opioid prescriptions, and actual patient consumption was unknown. Outpatient methadone prescriptions were not included. The study also excluded patients with breast cancer, limiting generalizability.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author reported consulting for Moderna and TriNetX. Another author reported consulting for Genetic Chemistry, Thyme Care, Biofourmis, Onc.Al, Credit Suisse, Main Street Health, ConcertAI, Medscape, and G1 Therapeutics. The other authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
About 1 in 10 veterans with early-stage cancer developed new persistent opioid use after curative‐intent surgery, though < 1% were diagnosed with opioid use disorder.
METHODOLOGY:
Although effective pain control during cancer treatment is vital, prescribing opioids in this context may contribute to unsafe, long-term use and related adverse outcomes. Veterans, who have higher-than-average rates of mental health and substance use disorders, may be at particular risk for adverse events from opioid use related to cancer treatment.
Researchers conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 9213 US veterans (98% men) with stage 0-III cancer who were opioid-naive and underwent curative-intent surgery at Veterans Affairs medical centers between 2015 and 2016. Prostate (n = 2594; 28%), colorectal (n = 2393; 26%), bladder (n = 2302; 25%), and lung (n = 1252; 14%) cancers were the most common.
Primary outcomes were the number of days of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids (an indicator of unsafe opioid prescribing) and new persistent opioid use, defined as receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription at 90-180 days postsurgery. Opioid‐related adverse effects, including opioid use disorder and opioid overdose, were also reported.
Overall, 6970 (76%) of the participants were prescribed opioids at some point during the baseline treatment period (30 days before through 14 days after surgery). The mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 172.5.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 4% of patients received co-prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids. The mean number of days of coprescription rose in tandem with opioid doses during the treatment period: from 0.48 days in the lowest MME quartile to 2.1 days in the highest quartile (P < .0001).
Over 1 in 10 patients (10.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Those in the highest MME quartile had a 1.6-fold greater risk of developing new persistent opioid use than those with no opioid exposure during the treatment period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; P < .001). The percentage of patients with opioid prescriptions did decline over the 13-month follow-up, but among those who continued on opioids, the daily MME remained stable (median, 20 for month 1 and 30 for month 12).
Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk for new persistent opioid use (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Additional risk factors included having bladder, colorectal, lung, or other types of cancer (vs prostate cancer); stage I-III disease (vs stage 0); age 45-64 years (vs older); lower socioeconomic status; preoperative use of nonopioid pain medication; and a baseline history of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.
Over 13 months, 72 patients (0.78%) developed opioid use disorder, 3 (0.03%) experienced nonoverdose adverse events, and no opioid overdose occurred.
IN PRACTICE:
“Although a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and associated pain syndromes will require specific pain management strategies,” the authors wrote, “efforts should be taken to mitigate long‐term opioid use and its potential adverse effects in this population. They added that “both system‐level changes that involve preoperative evaluation planning as well as increased knowledge, awareness, and education among providers and patients about the risk of long‐term opioid use can guide strategies for effective and safe pain management.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
Opioid prescriptions outside the Veterans Affairs system were not captured. The study was based on filled opioid prescriptions, and actual patient consumption was unknown. Outpatient methadone prescriptions were not included. The study also excluded patients with breast cancer, limiting generalizability.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author reported consulting for Moderna and TriNetX. Another author reported consulting for Genetic Chemistry, Thyme Care, Biofourmis, Onc.Al, Credit Suisse, Main Street Health, ConcertAI, Medscape, and G1 Therapeutics. The other authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
About 1 in 10 veterans with early-stage cancer developed new persistent opioid use after curative‐intent surgery, though < 1% were diagnosed with opioid use disorder.
METHODOLOGY:
Although effective pain control during cancer treatment is vital, prescribing opioids in this context may contribute to unsafe, long-term use and related adverse outcomes. Veterans, who have higher-than-average rates of mental health and substance use disorders, may be at particular risk for adverse events from opioid use related to cancer treatment.
Researchers conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 9213 US veterans (98% men) with stage 0-III cancer who were opioid-naive and underwent curative-intent surgery at Veterans Affairs medical centers between 2015 and 2016. Prostate (n = 2594; 28%), colorectal (n = 2393; 26%), bladder (n = 2302; 25%), and lung (n = 1252; 14%) cancers were the most common.
Primary outcomes were the number of days of co-prescription of benzodiazepines and opioids (an indicator of unsafe opioid prescribing) and new persistent opioid use, defined as receiving ≥ 1 opioid prescription at 90-180 days postsurgery. Opioid‐related adverse effects, including opioid use disorder and opioid overdose, were also reported.
Overall, 6970 (76%) of the participants were prescribed opioids at some point during the baseline treatment period (30 days before through 14 days after surgery). The mean morphine milligram equivalent (MME) was 172.5.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 4% of patients received co-prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids. The mean number of days of coprescription rose in tandem with opioid doses during the treatment period: from 0.48 days in the lowest MME quartile to 2.1 days in the highest quartile (P < .0001).
Over 1 in 10 patients (10.6%) developed new persistent opioid use. Those in the highest MME quartile had a 1.6-fold greater risk of developing new persistent opioid use than those with no opioid exposure during the treatment period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.6; P < .001). The percentage of patients with opioid prescriptions did decline over the 13-month follow-up, but among those who continued on opioids, the daily MME remained stable (median, 20 for month 1 and 30 for month 12).
Treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy increased the risk for new persistent opioid use (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001). Additional risk factors included having bladder, colorectal, lung, or other types of cancer (vs prostate cancer); stage I-III disease (vs stage 0); age 45-64 years (vs older); lower socioeconomic status; preoperative use of nonopioid pain medication; and a baseline history of anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder.
Over 13 months, 72 patients (0.78%) developed opioid use disorder, 3 (0.03%) experienced nonoverdose adverse events, and no opioid overdose occurred.
IN PRACTICE:
“Although a cancer diagnosis, treatment, and associated pain syndromes will require specific pain management strategies,” the authors wrote, “efforts should be taken to mitigate long‐term opioid use and its potential adverse effects in this population. They added that “both system‐level changes that involve preoperative evaluation planning as well as increased knowledge, awareness, and education among providers and patients about the risk of long‐term opioid use can guide strategies for effective and safe pain management.”
SOURCE:
The study, led by Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Center for Healthcare Evaluation, Research, and Promotion, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, was published online in Cancer.
LIMITATIONS:
Opioid prescriptions outside the Veterans Affairs system were not captured. The study was based on filled opioid prescriptions, and actual patient consumption was unknown. Outpatient methadone prescriptions were not included. The study also excluded patients with breast cancer, limiting generalizability.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs. One author reported consulting for Moderna and TriNetX. Another author reported consulting for Genetic Chemistry, Thyme Care, Biofourmis, Onc.Al, Credit Suisse, Main Street Health, ConcertAI, Medscape, and G1 Therapeutics. The other authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bariatric Surgery May Lower Long-Term CKD Risk
, according to a population-based study in Denmark.
Writing in BMC Nephrology, researchers reported patients with bariatric surgery had an increased 1-year risk for AKI and 10-year risk for nephrolithiasis, alongside a decreased 10-year risk for CKD (stages G3-5) and KFRT, compared with matched patients diagnosed with overweight/obesity who did not undergo surgery.
A Closer Look
Using national registry data, the team identified all adults who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018. Each patient was age- and sex-matched (1:5) to patients with hospital-diagnosed overweight/obesity without bariatric surgery. Researchers also compared results against a population cohort matched solely by age and sex. Outcomes included cumulative risks for AKI, nephrolithiasis, CKD (G3-G5), and KFRT.
The cohort comprised 18,827 surgical patients (17,200 RYGB and 1627 SG) and 94,135 matched comparators. Median age was 41 years, 76% were women, and the median follow-up was 8.1 years. At baseline, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was comparable (103 mL/min/1.73 m2) between both surgery and overweight/obesity control groups, as were A1c levels. There were fewer comorbidities in the population cohort matched only by age and sex than in the overweight/obesity comparison cohort.
Using multivariable Cox regression analyses, the researchers found the 1-year risk for AKI following bariatric surgery was 2.7%. At 10 years, risks were 3.5% for nephrolithiasis, 0.4% for CKD, and 0.2% for KFRT.
Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) after bariatric surgery vs without bariatric surgery were higher for AKI (HR, 1.63) and nephrolithiasis (HR, 1.73) and lower for CKD (HR, 0.41) and KFRT (HR, 0.63). Results were consistent when compared against the population cohort.
By procedure, the 1-year AKI risk was 2.7% after RYGB and 2.4% after SG vs 2.5% in the overweight/obesity cohort and 1.1% in the population cohort. At 10 years, the risk for incident nephrolithiasis was 3.6% after RYGB and 1.2% after SG vs 2.4% and 1.3% in the overweight/obese and population cohorts, respectively. KFRT risk at 10 years was 0.2% after RYGB and 1.6% after SG vs 0.4% and 0.1% in the overweight/obesity and population cohorts, respectively.
“The increased short-term risk of AKI and nephrolithiasis was expected, given the physiological changes after bariatric surgery, but the long-term reduction in CKD and KFRT was both encouraging and clinically important,” said study investigator Christian Goul Sørensen, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. “It was also noteworthy that the results were consistent not only in the obesity-matched comparison cohort but also in the cohort matched solely on age and sex, which further strengthens the validity of our findings.”
RYGB and SG are known to help mitigate obesity-associated complications, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes. Studies have suggested that there are improvements in eGFR after bariatric surgery. However, long-term evidence from routine clinical care has not been well studied. Furthermore, RYGB may lead to AKI due to a combination of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors.
“Obesity is a major driver of kidney disease, often in combination with comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension,” Sorensen told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients and clinicians face complex decisions about surgery, and understanding both the short-term surgical risks and the long-term kidney benefits is crucial for informed counseling. As bariatric surgery becomes increasingly common worldwide, population-based evidence like this helps guide clinical practice and supports shared decision-making with patients.”
Consistent With Clinical Experience
Panduranga S. Rao, MD, professor of nephrology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, who was not involved in the study, called the results consistent with prior clinical experience. He highlighted the strong follow-up and detailed lab and comorbidity data, while noting that the decreasing use of RYGB may limit applicability going forward.
“However, one has to remain vigilant to the risk of nephrolithiasis in the patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y in the past,” he said.
The observation of decreasing risk for CKD with weight loss is particularly relevant, given the growing use of GLP-1s for weight loss, Rao added.
Srinivasan Beddhu, MD, professor of internal medicine and the scientific director of the Cardio-Renal & Metabolism Center at the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, said the large national cohort design and outcomes data offer further reassurance about the long-term kidney health effects of bariatric surgery.
“The message that the risks of AKI and nephrolithiasis are outweighed by the long-term kidney protective effects of bariatric surgery is important,” said Beddhu.
Alexander Chang, MD, associate professor and a practicing nephrologist at the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pennsylvania, noted that the study provided more evidence about RYGB-associated kidney stone risk via fat malabsorption, which raises the levels of fatty acids that bind dietary calcium.
“Calcium normally precipitates with dietary oxalate, and thus, there can be an increase in urinary oxalate,” Chang explained. “There did not appear to be increased risk of nephrolithiasis with sleeve gastrectomy, consistent with other studies.
“This study emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary care post-bariatric surgery to try to prevent complications such as kidney stones,” Chang added. “This can be tricky but requires trying different strategies to increase fluid intake and calcium citrate supplements with meals.”
The study was partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Independent Research Fund Denmark. One author reported receiving a speaking fee support from Novo Nordisk for conference attendance. The other authors declared no competing interests. Sørensen, Rao, Beddhu, and Chang had no financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a population-based study in Denmark.
Writing in BMC Nephrology, researchers reported patients with bariatric surgery had an increased 1-year risk for AKI and 10-year risk for nephrolithiasis, alongside a decreased 10-year risk for CKD (stages G3-5) and KFRT, compared with matched patients diagnosed with overweight/obesity who did not undergo surgery.
A Closer Look
Using national registry data, the team identified all adults who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018. Each patient was age- and sex-matched (1:5) to patients with hospital-diagnosed overweight/obesity without bariatric surgery. Researchers also compared results against a population cohort matched solely by age and sex. Outcomes included cumulative risks for AKI, nephrolithiasis, CKD (G3-G5), and KFRT.
The cohort comprised 18,827 surgical patients (17,200 RYGB and 1627 SG) and 94,135 matched comparators. Median age was 41 years, 76% were women, and the median follow-up was 8.1 years. At baseline, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was comparable (103 mL/min/1.73 m2) between both surgery and overweight/obesity control groups, as were A1c levels. There were fewer comorbidities in the population cohort matched only by age and sex than in the overweight/obesity comparison cohort.
Using multivariable Cox regression analyses, the researchers found the 1-year risk for AKI following bariatric surgery was 2.7%. At 10 years, risks were 3.5% for nephrolithiasis, 0.4% for CKD, and 0.2% for KFRT.
Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) after bariatric surgery vs without bariatric surgery were higher for AKI (HR, 1.63) and nephrolithiasis (HR, 1.73) and lower for CKD (HR, 0.41) and KFRT (HR, 0.63). Results were consistent when compared against the population cohort.
By procedure, the 1-year AKI risk was 2.7% after RYGB and 2.4% after SG vs 2.5% in the overweight/obesity cohort and 1.1% in the population cohort. At 10 years, the risk for incident nephrolithiasis was 3.6% after RYGB and 1.2% after SG vs 2.4% and 1.3% in the overweight/obese and population cohorts, respectively. KFRT risk at 10 years was 0.2% after RYGB and 1.6% after SG vs 0.4% and 0.1% in the overweight/obesity and population cohorts, respectively.
“The increased short-term risk of AKI and nephrolithiasis was expected, given the physiological changes after bariatric surgery, but the long-term reduction in CKD and KFRT was both encouraging and clinically important,” said study investigator Christian Goul Sørensen, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. “It was also noteworthy that the results were consistent not only in the obesity-matched comparison cohort but also in the cohort matched solely on age and sex, which further strengthens the validity of our findings.”
RYGB and SG are known to help mitigate obesity-associated complications, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes. Studies have suggested that there are improvements in eGFR after bariatric surgery. However, long-term evidence from routine clinical care has not been well studied. Furthermore, RYGB may lead to AKI due to a combination of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors.
“Obesity is a major driver of kidney disease, often in combination with comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension,” Sorensen told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients and clinicians face complex decisions about surgery, and understanding both the short-term surgical risks and the long-term kidney benefits is crucial for informed counseling. As bariatric surgery becomes increasingly common worldwide, population-based evidence like this helps guide clinical practice and supports shared decision-making with patients.”
Consistent With Clinical Experience
Panduranga S. Rao, MD, professor of nephrology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, who was not involved in the study, called the results consistent with prior clinical experience. He highlighted the strong follow-up and detailed lab and comorbidity data, while noting that the decreasing use of RYGB may limit applicability going forward.
“However, one has to remain vigilant to the risk of nephrolithiasis in the patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y in the past,” he said.
The observation of decreasing risk for CKD with weight loss is particularly relevant, given the growing use of GLP-1s for weight loss, Rao added.
Srinivasan Beddhu, MD, professor of internal medicine and the scientific director of the Cardio-Renal & Metabolism Center at the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, said the large national cohort design and outcomes data offer further reassurance about the long-term kidney health effects of bariatric surgery.
“The message that the risks of AKI and nephrolithiasis are outweighed by the long-term kidney protective effects of bariatric surgery is important,” said Beddhu.
Alexander Chang, MD, associate professor and a practicing nephrologist at the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pennsylvania, noted that the study provided more evidence about RYGB-associated kidney stone risk via fat malabsorption, which raises the levels of fatty acids that bind dietary calcium.
“Calcium normally precipitates with dietary oxalate, and thus, there can be an increase in urinary oxalate,” Chang explained. “There did not appear to be increased risk of nephrolithiasis with sleeve gastrectomy, consistent with other studies.
“This study emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary care post-bariatric surgery to try to prevent complications such as kidney stones,” Chang added. “This can be tricky but requires trying different strategies to increase fluid intake and calcium citrate supplements with meals.”
The study was partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Independent Research Fund Denmark. One author reported receiving a speaking fee support from Novo Nordisk for conference attendance. The other authors declared no competing interests. Sørensen, Rao, Beddhu, and Chang had no financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a population-based study in Denmark.
Writing in BMC Nephrology, researchers reported patients with bariatric surgery had an increased 1-year risk for AKI and 10-year risk for nephrolithiasis, alongside a decreased 10-year risk for CKD (stages G3-5) and KFRT, compared with matched patients diagnosed with overweight/obesity who did not undergo surgery.
A Closer Look
Using national registry data, the team identified all adults who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2018. Each patient was age- and sex-matched (1:5) to patients with hospital-diagnosed overweight/obesity without bariatric surgery. Researchers also compared results against a population cohort matched solely by age and sex. Outcomes included cumulative risks for AKI, nephrolithiasis, CKD (G3-G5), and KFRT.
The cohort comprised 18,827 surgical patients (17,200 RYGB and 1627 SG) and 94,135 matched comparators. Median age was 41 years, 76% were women, and the median follow-up was 8.1 years. At baseline, the median estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was comparable (103 mL/min/1.73 m2) between both surgery and overweight/obesity control groups, as were A1c levels. There were fewer comorbidities in the population cohort matched only by age and sex than in the overweight/obesity comparison cohort.
Using multivariable Cox regression analyses, the researchers found the 1-year risk for AKI following bariatric surgery was 2.7%. At 10 years, risks were 3.5% for nephrolithiasis, 0.4% for CKD, and 0.2% for KFRT.
Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) after bariatric surgery vs without bariatric surgery were higher for AKI (HR, 1.63) and nephrolithiasis (HR, 1.73) and lower for CKD (HR, 0.41) and KFRT (HR, 0.63). Results were consistent when compared against the population cohort.
By procedure, the 1-year AKI risk was 2.7% after RYGB and 2.4% after SG vs 2.5% in the overweight/obesity cohort and 1.1% in the population cohort. At 10 years, the risk for incident nephrolithiasis was 3.6% after RYGB and 1.2% after SG vs 2.4% and 1.3% in the overweight/obese and population cohorts, respectively. KFRT risk at 10 years was 0.2% after RYGB and 1.6% after SG vs 0.4% and 0.1% in the overweight/obesity and population cohorts, respectively.
“The increased short-term risk of AKI and nephrolithiasis was expected, given the physiological changes after bariatric surgery, but the long-term reduction in CKD and KFRT was both encouraging and clinically important,” said study investigator Christian Goul Sørensen, MD, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University and Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. “It was also noteworthy that the results were consistent not only in the obesity-matched comparison cohort but also in the cohort matched solely on age and sex, which further strengthens the validity of our findings.”
RYGB and SG are known to help mitigate obesity-associated complications, such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and type 2 diabetes. Studies have suggested that there are improvements in eGFR after bariatric surgery. However, long-term evidence from routine clinical care has not been well studied. Furthermore, RYGB may lead to AKI due to a combination of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors.
“Obesity is a major driver of kidney disease, often in combination with comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension,” Sorensen told GI & Hepatology News. “Patients and clinicians face complex decisions about surgery, and understanding both the short-term surgical risks and the long-term kidney benefits is crucial for informed counseling. As bariatric surgery becomes increasingly common worldwide, population-based evidence like this helps guide clinical practice and supports shared decision-making with patients.”
Consistent With Clinical Experience
Panduranga S. Rao, MD, professor of nephrology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, who was not involved in the study, called the results consistent with prior clinical experience. He highlighted the strong follow-up and detailed lab and comorbidity data, while noting that the decreasing use of RYGB may limit applicability going forward.
“However, one has to remain vigilant to the risk of nephrolithiasis in the patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y in the past,” he said.
The observation of decreasing risk for CKD with weight loss is particularly relevant, given the growing use of GLP-1s for weight loss, Rao added.
Srinivasan Beddhu, MD, professor of internal medicine and the scientific director of the Cardio-Renal & Metabolism Center at the University of Utah Health in Salt Lake City, said the large national cohort design and outcomes data offer further reassurance about the long-term kidney health effects of bariatric surgery.
“The message that the risks of AKI and nephrolithiasis are outweighed by the long-term kidney protective effects of bariatric surgery is important,” said Beddhu.
Alexander Chang, MD, associate professor and a practicing nephrologist at the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pennsylvania, noted that the study provided more evidence about RYGB-associated kidney stone risk via fat malabsorption, which raises the levels of fatty acids that bind dietary calcium.
“Calcium normally precipitates with dietary oxalate, and thus, there can be an increase in urinary oxalate,” Chang explained. “There did not appear to be increased risk of nephrolithiasis with sleeve gastrectomy, consistent with other studies.
“This study emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary care post-bariatric surgery to try to prevent complications such as kidney stones,” Chang added. “This can be tricky but requires trying different strategies to increase fluid intake and calcium citrate supplements with meals.”
The study was partly funded by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Independent Research Fund Denmark. One author reported receiving a speaking fee support from Novo Nordisk for conference attendance. The other authors declared no competing interests. Sørensen, Rao, Beddhu, and Chang had no financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Trauma, Military Fitness, and Eating Disorders
Military culture may hold 2 salient risk factors for eating disorders: exposure to trauma and body condition standards. A recent study from the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Salisbury Health Care System (VASHCS) found that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report eating disturbances—particularly issues related to body dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with eating habits. A 2019 study found that one-third of veterans who were overweight or obese screened positive for engaging in “making weight” behaviors during military service, or unhealthy weight control strategies. Frequently reported weight management behavior was excessive exercise, fasting/skipping meals, sitting in a sauna/wearing a latex suit, laxatives, diuretics, and vomiting.
Service members who are “normal” weight by civilian standards may be labeled “overweight” by the military. In a March 12 memo, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a US Department of Defense review of existing standards for physical fitness, body composition, and grooming. “Our troops will be fit — not fat. Our troops will look sharp — not sloppy. We seek only quality — not quotas. BOTTOM LINE: our @DeptofDefense will make standards HIGH & GREAT again — across the entire force,” he posted on X.
The desire to control weight to fit military standards, however, isn’t the only risk factor. Researchers at VASHCS surveyed 527 post-9/11 veterans (80.7% male) who typically deployed 1 or 2 times. All participants completed the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; the Neuro-Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale (PAWB); and the Eating Disturbances Scale.
Nearly half (46%) of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a lifetime PTSD diagnosis. The study also reported significantly greater eating disturbances in veterans with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis than those without. Women reported significantly greater eating disturbances than men.
Most participants (80%) reported some level of dissatisfaction with their eating disturbances and 74% of participants reported feeling as if they were too fat.
Eating disturbances include refusing food, overexercising, overeating, and misusing laxatives or diuretic pills. Previous research that suggest that 10% to 15% of female veterans and 4% to 8% of male veterans report clinically significant disordered eating behaviors, especially binge eating. One study found that 78% of 45,477 overweight or obese veterans receiving care in VA facilities reported clinically significant binge eating. In a 2021 study, 254 veterans presenting for routine clinical care completed self‐report questionnaires assessing eating disorders, PTSD, depression, and shame, and 31% met probable criteria for bulimia nervosa, binge‐eating disorder, or purging disorder.
According to a 2023 study, eating disturbances that do not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal disorder can be problematic and may function as coping strategies for some facets of military life. The VASHCS researchers found that interventions focused on PAWB, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or compassion-focused therapy, may have potential as a protective factor. Including components that foster hope, optimism, and personal strength may positively mitigate the relationship between PTSD and eating disturbances. PAWB was significantly correlated with eating disturbances; individuals with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis reported significantly lower PAWB than those without.
Interventions grounded in positive psychology have shown promise. A group-based program found “noticeable” (although nonsignificant) improvements in optimistic thinking and treatment engagement. The study also cites that clinicians are beginning to incorporate positive psychology strategies (eg, gratitude journaling, goal setting, and “best possible self” visualization) as adjuncts to traditional treatments. Positive psychology, they write, holds “significant promise as a complementary approach to enhance recovery outcomes in both PTSD and eating disorders.”
Military culture may hold 2 salient risk factors for eating disorders: exposure to trauma and body condition standards. A recent study from the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Salisbury Health Care System (VASHCS) found that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report eating disturbances—particularly issues related to body dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with eating habits. A 2019 study found that one-third of veterans who were overweight or obese screened positive for engaging in “making weight” behaviors during military service, or unhealthy weight control strategies. Frequently reported weight management behavior was excessive exercise, fasting/skipping meals, sitting in a sauna/wearing a latex suit, laxatives, diuretics, and vomiting.
Service members who are “normal” weight by civilian standards may be labeled “overweight” by the military. In a March 12 memo, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a US Department of Defense review of existing standards for physical fitness, body composition, and grooming. “Our troops will be fit — not fat. Our troops will look sharp — not sloppy. We seek only quality — not quotas. BOTTOM LINE: our @DeptofDefense will make standards HIGH & GREAT again — across the entire force,” he posted on X.
The desire to control weight to fit military standards, however, isn’t the only risk factor. Researchers at VASHCS surveyed 527 post-9/11 veterans (80.7% male) who typically deployed 1 or 2 times. All participants completed the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; the Neuro-Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale (PAWB); and the Eating Disturbances Scale.
Nearly half (46%) of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a lifetime PTSD diagnosis. The study also reported significantly greater eating disturbances in veterans with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis than those without. Women reported significantly greater eating disturbances than men.
Most participants (80%) reported some level of dissatisfaction with their eating disturbances and 74% of participants reported feeling as if they were too fat.
Eating disturbances include refusing food, overexercising, overeating, and misusing laxatives or diuretic pills. Previous research that suggest that 10% to 15% of female veterans and 4% to 8% of male veterans report clinically significant disordered eating behaviors, especially binge eating. One study found that 78% of 45,477 overweight or obese veterans receiving care in VA facilities reported clinically significant binge eating. In a 2021 study, 254 veterans presenting for routine clinical care completed self‐report questionnaires assessing eating disorders, PTSD, depression, and shame, and 31% met probable criteria for bulimia nervosa, binge‐eating disorder, or purging disorder.
According to a 2023 study, eating disturbances that do not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal disorder can be problematic and may function as coping strategies for some facets of military life. The VASHCS researchers found that interventions focused on PAWB, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or compassion-focused therapy, may have potential as a protective factor. Including components that foster hope, optimism, and personal strength may positively mitigate the relationship between PTSD and eating disturbances. PAWB was significantly correlated with eating disturbances; individuals with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis reported significantly lower PAWB than those without.
Interventions grounded in positive psychology have shown promise. A group-based program found “noticeable” (although nonsignificant) improvements in optimistic thinking and treatment engagement. The study also cites that clinicians are beginning to incorporate positive psychology strategies (eg, gratitude journaling, goal setting, and “best possible self” visualization) as adjuncts to traditional treatments. Positive psychology, they write, holds “significant promise as a complementary approach to enhance recovery outcomes in both PTSD and eating disorders.”
Military culture may hold 2 salient risk factors for eating disorders: exposure to trauma and body condition standards. A recent study from the US Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Salisbury Health Care System (VASHCS) found that veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are more likely to report eating disturbances—particularly issues related to body dissatisfaction and dissatisfaction with eating habits. A 2019 study found that one-third of veterans who were overweight or obese screened positive for engaging in “making weight” behaviors during military service, or unhealthy weight control strategies. Frequently reported weight management behavior was excessive exercise, fasting/skipping meals, sitting in a sauna/wearing a latex suit, laxatives, diuretics, and vomiting.
Service members who are “normal” weight by civilian standards may be labeled “overweight” by the military. In a March 12 memo, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered a US Department of Defense review of existing standards for physical fitness, body composition, and grooming. “Our troops will be fit — not fat. Our troops will look sharp — not sloppy. We seek only quality — not quotas. BOTTOM LINE: our @DeptofDefense will make standards HIGH & GREAT again — across the entire force,” he posted on X.
The desire to control weight to fit military standards, however, isn’t the only risk factor. Researchers at VASHCS surveyed 527 post-9/11 veterans (80.7% male) who typically deployed 1 or 2 times. All participants completed the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition; the Neuro-Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders Positive Affect and Well-Being Scale (PAWB); and the Eating Disturbances Scale.
Nearly half (46%) of the sample met diagnostic criteria for a lifetime PTSD diagnosis. The study also reported significantly greater eating disturbances in veterans with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis than those without. Women reported significantly greater eating disturbances than men.
Most participants (80%) reported some level of dissatisfaction with their eating disturbances and 74% of participants reported feeling as if they were too fat.
Eating disturbances include refusing food, overexercising, overeating, and misusing laxatives or diuretic pills. Previous research that suggest that 10% to 15% of female veterans and 4% to 8% of male veterans report clinically significant disordered eating behaviors, especially binge eating. One study found that 78% of 45,477 overweight or obese veterans receiving care in VA facilities reported clinically significant binge eating. In a 2021 study, 254 veterans presenting for routine clinical care completed self‐report questionnaires assessing eating disorders, PTSD, depression, and shame, and 31% met probable criteria for bulimia nervosa, binge‐eating disorder, or purging disorder.
According to a 2023 study, eating disturbances that do not meet diagnostic criteria for a formal disorder can be problematic and may function as coping strategies for some facets of military life. The VASHCS researchers found that interventions focused on PAWB, such as acceptance and commitment therapy or compassion-focused therapy, may have potential as a protective factor. Including components that foster hope, optimism, and personal strength may positively mitigate the relationship between PTSD and eating disturbances. PAWB was significantly correlated with eating disturbances; individuals with a lifetime PTSD diagnosis reported significantly lower PAWB than those without.
Interventions grounded in positive psychology have shown promise. A group-based program found “noticeable” (although nonsignificant) improvements in optimistic thinking and treatment engagement. The study also cites that clinicians are beginning to incorporate positive psychology strategies (eg, gratitude journaling, goal setting, and “best possible self” visualization) as adjuncts to traditional treatments. Positive psychology, they write, holds “significant promise as a complementary approach to enhance recovery outcomes in both PTSD and eating disorders.”
Getting Ahead of Gastrointestinal Cancer
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Early-onset gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are climbing among those younger than 50 years, in the US and globally. Although colorectal cancer accounts for approximately half of such cases, rates are also increasing for gastric, esophageal, pancreatic, and several rarer GI malignancies.
Because most in this age group are not included in screening protocols and may present with vague symptoms, diagnosis and treatment is frequently delayed. According to experts in the field, counteracting this trend requires establishing a lower threshold for evaluation, attention to modifiable risk factors, and embracing emerging noninvasive diagnostic tools.
Diagnostic Dilemmas
“Colorectal cancer in particular is often diagnosed later in life,” said Nicholas DeVito, MD, assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, and a specialist in GI malignancies. “When the patient is too young for routine screening colonoscopy (< 45 years), they aren’t screened at all, they do not have alarming symptoms, or their symptoms are overlooked.” Other increasingly common GI cancers in young people (esophageal, gastric, pancreatic) lack routine screening guidelines due to limited evidence, he added.
Symptoms such as nausea, weight loss, upset stomach, and abdominal pain are often nonspecific and have many other potential causes, so GI cancers may not be high on the list of possible diagnoses in patients younger than 50 years, said DeVito.
“Insurance coverage, socioeconomic status, appointment availability, and awareness of symptoms and screening methods are all barriers to diagnosis as well, which affect the diagnostic timeline of many cancers,” he added.“While there are multiple factors that contribute to a cancer diagnosis, it seems that obesity, a Western diet, a sedentary lifestyle are all major contributors to the rise in early GI cancers,” DeVito told GI & Hepatology News. “There is no blame or judgement to go around as cancer can happen to anyone at any time, with none of these factors present,” he emphasized.
When counseling patients about GI cancer risk, DeVito recommends keeping advice simple and specific. In general, they should restrict red meat to once a week, emphasize fresh fruits and vegetables, cap alcohol to ≤ 1 serving per day, and limit ultraprocessed foods (e.g., packaged snacks, preprepared meals, and sugary beverages).
Exercise is another pillar. “Find an activity you enjoy and work toward 30 minutes of aerobic exercise three times a week,” he advised. He also encourages finding opportunities to incorporate physical activity in daily lives, such as using a standing desk at work, while keeping patients’ socioeconomic constraints in mind.
Evidence around GI cancer prevention interventions is still evolving. However, a randomized phase 3 trial presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology’s 2025 meeting found significant improvement in disease-free survival among adults with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer (median age, 61 years) who reported higher intake of anti-inflammatory foods and greater exercise than a comparator group.
“In general, clinicians should be aware of the risk factors, make referrals to physical therapy, weight-loss specialists, endocrinologists, and nutritionists when appropriate, and be consistent and clear with patients about recommendations and what’s achievable,” DeVito said. “Meeting patients where they are can help make incremental progress, as these interventions take time and patience, and we should be understanding of that.”
Identifying at-risk younger adults goes beyond discussing family history and obesity to include diet, exercise, and daily lifestyle, he added.
“Symptoms of potential GI cancer need to be taken seriously in all patients, and there should be a lower threshold in 2025 to get a colonoscopy, endoscopy, or CT scan than in previous years given all that we know today. We then need to establish through clinical studies who needs screening tests and who doesn’t, and what interventions work best to reduce risk.”
Vigilance in the Absence of Screening
“Most GI cancers, unfortunately, can grow a fair amount before symptoms arise, so many patients present with symptoms only when a tumor has grown enough to affect organ function,” said Miguel Burch, MD, chief of minimally invasive and GI surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
Early screening improves outcomes in gastric cancer, Burch noted, and survival benefits are reflected in several East Asian countries that offer gastric cancer screening starting at age 40. In one study from Korea, a single upper endoscopy was associated with an approximate 40% reduction in gastric cancer mortality compared with no screening.
, Burch emphasized. The impact is wide-ranging, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality in younger adults often in their most productive years, leading to lost wages and emotional strains upon patients and their families.Routine endoscopic or imaging screening is not typically performed in the US, and newer blood-based tests such as circulating tumor DNA are not yet sensitive enough to reliably detect very early-stage disease. Nonetheless, there is evidence that noninvasive biomarkers could soon help expand GI cancer screening.
In a study published in JAMA Surgery, Sui and colleagues tested a 10-microRNA signature assay (Destinex) for early detection of gastric cancer and reported robust identification rates above 95%.
“In recent years, the liquid biopsy has gained momentum with the hope of augmenting cancer detection from peripheral blood, even indicating potential as a screening test for healthy populations,” wrote Max R. Coffey, MD, and Vivian E. Strong, MD, both of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in an accompanying editorial.
“Early detection is absolutely critical; when gastric cancer is found early, outcomes are dramatically better,” Strong told GI & Hepatology News. Subtle symptoms — reflux, persistent GI discomfort, or unexplained weight loss — should never be ignored, she added.
Early detection should also focus on additional risk factors such as prior Helicobacter pylori infection, smoking, and family history.
“Anyone with a personal or family history of H pylori should have very careful follow-up, and if one household member tests positive, all should be checked,” Strong said. “Just as importantly, if one or more family members have had stomach cancer, that should be discussed with a healthcare provider, as it may warrant higher-level surveillance and genetic testing.”
Individuals concerned about increased risk for GI cancer should proactively ask their doctors whether they might benefit from testing or surveillance, Strong added.
“Lifestyle changes, timely medical evaluation, and tailored surveillance all play a vital role in prevention.”
DeVito disclosed clinical trial funding from the Gateway foundation, Xilio, Phanes, Astellas, GSK, as well as consulting fees/advisory board participation for Guardant, Agenus, and Xilio. Strong disclosed speaking honoraria for Merck and Astra Zeneca.
The study by Sui and colleagues was supported by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, as well as by a grant from the American Gastroenterological Association Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer, and the Stupid Strong Foundation.
Burch had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.