Liver Disease

WASHINGTON — Microbiota-focused dietary therapy could improve disease outcomes and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

For instance, patients with MASLD had lower intake of fiber and omega-3 fatty acids but higher consumption of added sugars and ultraprocessed foods, which correlated with the associated bacterial species and functional pathways.

“MASLD is an escalating concern globally, which highlights the need for innovative targets for disease prevention and management,” said lead author Georgina Williams, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in diet and gastroenterology at the University of Newcastle, Australia.

“Therapeutic options often rely on lifestyle modifications, with a focus on weight loss,” she said. “Diet is considered a key component of disease management.”

Although calorie restriction with a 3%-5% fat loss is associated with hepatic benefits in MASLD, Dr. Williams noted, researchers have considered whole dietary patterns and the best fit for patients. Aspects of the Mediterranean diet may be effective, as reflected in recommendations from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), which highlight dietary components such as limited carbohydrates and saturated fat, along with high fiber and unsaturated fats. The gut microbiome may be essential to consider as well, she said, given MASLD-associated differences in bile acid metabolism, inflammation, and ethanol production.

Dr. Williams and colleagues conducted a retrospective case-control study in an outpatient liver clinic to understand diet and dysbiosis in MASLD, looking at differences in diet, gut microbiota composition, and functional pathways in those with and without MASLD. The researchers investigated daily average intake, serum, and stool samples among 50 people (25 per group) matched for age and gender, comparing fibrosis-4, MASLD severity scores, macronutrients, micronutrients, food groups, metagenomic sequencing, and inflammatory markers such as interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, cytokeratin (CK)-18, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP).
 

Dietary Characteristics

At baseline, the groups differed by ethnicity, prescription medication use, and body mass index (BMI), where the MASLD group had greater ethnic diversity, medication use, and BMI. In addition, the MASLD group had a zero to mild score of fibrosis.

Overall, energy intake didn’t differ significantly between the two groups. The control group had higher alcohol intake, likely since the MASLD group was recommended to reduce alcohol intake, though the difference was about 5 grams per day. The MASLD group also had less caffeine intake than the control group, as well as slightly lower protein intake, though the differences weren’t statistically significant.

While consumption of total carbohydrates didn’t differ significantly between the groups, participants with MASLD consumed more calories from carbohydrates than did the controls. The MASLD group consumed more calories from added and free sugars and didn’t meet recommendations for dietary fiber.

With particular food groups, participants with MASLD ate significantly fewer whole grains, red and orange fruits, and leafy green vegetables. When consuming fruit, those with MASLD were more likely to drink juice than eat whole fruit. These findings could be relevant when considering high sugar intake and low dietary fiber, Dr. Williams said.

With dietary fat, there were no differences in total fat between the groups, but the fat profiles differed. The control group was significantly more likely to consume omega-3 fatty acids, including alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The MASLD group was less likely to consume seafood, nuts, seeds, avocado, and olive oil.

With inflammatory markers, hsCRP and CK-18 were increased in MASLD, while IL-1ß was increased in controls, which was consistently associated with higher alcohol intake among the control group. IL-6 and TNF-α didn’t differ between the groups.

Notably, dietary fats were most consistently associated with inflammatory markers, Dr. Williams said, with inflammation being positively associated with saturated fats and negatively associated with unsaturated fats.

Looking at microbiota, the alpha diversity was no different, but the beta diversity was across 162 taxa. Per bacterial species, there was an inverse relationship between MASLD and associations with unsaturated fat, as well as positive indicators of high sugar and fructose intake and low unsaturated fat and dietary fiber intake.

Beyond that, the functional pathways enriched in MASLD were associated with increased sugar and carbohydrates, reduced fiber, and reduced unsaturated fat. Lower butyrate production in MASLD was associated with low intake of nuts, seeds, and unsaturated fat.
 

In Clinical Practice

Dr. Williams suggested reinforcing AASLD guidelines and looking at diet quality, not just diet quantity. Although an energy deficit remains relevant in MASLD, macronutrient consumption matters across dietary fats, fibers, and sugars.

Future avenues for research include metabolomic pathways related to bile acids and fatty acids, she said, as well as disentangling metabolic syndrome from MASLD outcomes.

Session moderator Olivier Barbier, PhD, professor of pharmacy at Laval University in Quebec, Canada, asked about microbiome differences across countries. Dr. Williams noted the limitations in this study of looking at differences across geography and ethnicity, particularly in Australia, but said the species identified were consistent with those found in most literature globally.

In response to other questions after the presentation, Dr. Williams said supplements (such as omega-3 fatty acids) were included in total intake, and those taking prebiotics or probiotics were excluded from the study. In an upcoming clinical trial, she and colleagues plan to control for household microbiomes as well.

“The premise is that microbiomes are shared between households, so when you’re doing these sorts of large-scale clinical studies, if you’re going to look at the microbiome, then you should control for one of the major confounding variables,” said Mark Sundrud, PhD, professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Center for Digestive Health in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Sundrud, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented on the role of bile acids in mucosal immune cell function at DDW.

“We’ve done a collaborative study looking at microbiomes and bile acids in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients versus controls,” which included consideration of households, he said. “We were able to see more intrinsic disease-specific changes.”

Dr. Williams declared no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundrud has served as a scientific adviser to Sage Therapeutics.

WASHINGTON — Microbiota-focused dietary therapy could improve disease outcomes and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

For instance, patients with MASLD had lower intake of fiber and omega-3 fatty acids but higher consumption of added sugars and ultraprocessed foods, which correlated with the associated bacterial species and functional pathways.

“MASLD is an escalating concern globally, which highlights the need for innovative targets for disease prevention and management,” said lead author Georgina Williams, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in diet and gastroenterology at the University of Newcastle, Australia.

“Therapeutic options often rely on lifestyle modifications, with a focus on weight loss,” she said. “Diet is considered a key component of disease management.”

Although calorie restriction with a 3%-5% fat loss is associated with hepatic benefits in MASLD, Dr. Williams noted, researchers have considered whole dietary patterns and the best fit for patients. Aspects of the Mediterranean diet may be effective, as reflected in recommendations from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), which highlight dietary components such as limited carbohydrates and saturated fat, along with high fiber and unsaturated fats. The gut microbiome may be essential to consider as well, she said, given MASLD-associated differences in bile acid metabolism, inflammation, and ethanol production.

Dr. Williams and colleagues conducted a retrospective case-control study in an outpatient liver clinic to understand diet and dysbiosis in MASLD, looking at differences in diet, gut microbiota composition, and functional pathways in those with and without MASLD. The researchers investigated daily average intake, serum, and stool samples among 50 people (25 per group) matched for age and gender, comparing fibrosis-4, MASLD severity scores, macronutrients, micronutrients, food groups, metagenomic sequencing, and inflammatory markers such as interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, cytokeratin (CK)-18, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP).
 

Dietary Characteristics

At baseline, the groups differed by ethnicity, prescription medication use, and body mass index (BMI), where the MASLD group had greater ethnic diversity, medication use, and BMI. In addition, the MASLD group had a zero to mild score of fibrosis.

Overall, energy intake didn’t differ significantly between the two groups. The control group had higher alcohol intake, likely since the MASLD group was recommended to reduce alcohol intake, though the difference was about 5 grams per day. The MASLD group also had less caffeine intake than the control group, as well as slightly lower protein intake, though the differences weren’t statistically significant.

While consumption of total carbohydrates didn’t differ significantly between the groups, participants with MASLD consumed more calories from carbohydrates than did the controls. The MASLD group consumed more calories from added and free sugars and didn’t meet recommendations for dietary fiber.

With particular food groups, participants with MASLD ate significantly fewer whole grains, red and orange fruits, and leafy green vegetables. When consuming fruit, those with MASLD were more likely to drink juice than eat whole fruit. These findings could be relevant when considering high sugar intake and low dietary fiber, Dr. Williams said.

With dietary fat, there were no differences in total fat between the groups, but the fat profiles differed. The control group was significantly more likely to consume omega-3 fatty acids, including alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The MASLD group was less likely to consume seafood, nuts, seeds, avocado, and olive oil.

With inflammatory markers, hsCRP and CK-18 were increased in MASLD, while IL-1ß was increased in controls, which was consistently associated with higher alcohol intake among the control group. IL-6 and TNF-α didn’t differ between the groups.

Notably, dietary fats were most consistently associated with inflammatory markers, Dr. Williams said, with inflammation being positively associated with saturated fats and negatively associated with unsaturated fats.

Looking at microbiota, the alpha diversity was no different, but the beta diversity was across 162 taxa. Per bacterial species, there was an inverse relationship between MASLD and associations with unsaturated fat, as well as positive indicators of high sugar and fructose intake and low unsaturated fat and dietary fiber intake.

Beyond that, the functional pathways enriched in MASLD were associated with increased sugar and carbohydrates, reduced fiber, and reduced unsaturated fat. Lower butyrate production in MASLD was associated with low intake of nuts, seeds, and unsaturated fat.
 

In Clinical Practice

Dr. Williams suggested reinforcing AASLD guidelines and looking at diet quality, not just diet quantity. Although an energy deficit remains relevant in MASLD, macronutrient consumption matters across dietary fats, fibers, and sugars.

Future avenues for research include metabolomic pathways related to bile acids and fatty acids, she said, as well as disentangling metabolic syndrome from MASLD outcomes.

Session moderator Olivier Barbier, PhD, professor of pharmacy at Laval University in Quebec, Canada, asked about microbiome differences across countries. Dr. Williams noted the limitations in this study of looking at differences across geography and ethnicity, particularly in Australia, but said the species identified were consistent with those found in most literature globally.

In response to other questions after the presentation, Dr. Williams said supplements (such as omega-3 fatty acids) were included in total intake, and those taking prebiotics or probiotics were excluded from the study. In an upcoming clinical trial, she and colleagues plan to control for household microbiomes as well.

“The premise is that microbiomes are shared between households, so when you’re doing these sorts of large-scale clinical studies, if you’re going to look at the microbiome, then you should control for one of the major confounding variables,” said Mark Sundrud, PhD, professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Center for Digestive Health in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Sundrud, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented on the role of bile acids in mucosal immune cell function at DDW.

“We’ve done a collaborative study looking at microbiomes and bile acids in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients versus controls,” which included consideration of households, he said. “We were able to see more intrinsic disease-specific changes.”

Dr. Williams declared no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundrud has served as a scientific adviser to Sage Therapeutics.

WASHINGTON — Microbiota-focused dietary therapy could improve disease outcomes and management of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

For instance, patients with MASLD had lower intake of fiber and omega-3 fatty acids but higher consumption of added sugars and ultraprocessed foods, which correlated with the associated bacterial species and functional pathways.

“MASLD is an escalating concern globally, which highlights the need for innovative targets for disease prevention and management,” said lead author Georgina Williams, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in diet and gastroenterology at the University of Newcastle, Australia.

“Therapeutic options often rely on lifestyle modifications, with a focus on weight loss,” she said. “Diet is considered a key component of disease management.”

Although calorie restriction with a 3%-5% fat loss is associated with hepatic benefits in MASLD, Dr. Williams noted, researchers have considered whole dietary patterns and the best fit for patients. Aspects of the Mediterranean diet may be effective, as reflected in recommendations from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), which highlight dietary components such as limited carbohydrates and saturated fat, along with high fiber and unsaturated fats. The gut microbiome may be essential to consider as well, she said, given MASLD-associated differences in bile acid metabolism, inflammation, and ethanol production.

Dr. Williams and colleagues conducted a retrospective case-control study in an outpatient liver clinic to understand diet and dysbiosis in MASLD, looking at differences in diet, gut microbiota composition, and functional pathways in those with and without MASLD. The researchers investigated daily average intake, serum, and stool samples among 50 people (25 per group) matched for age and gender, comparing fibrosis-4, MASLD severity scores, macronutrients, micronutrients, food groups, metagenomic sequencing, and inflammatory markers such as interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, cytokeratin (CK)-18, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP).
 

Dietary Characteristics

At baseline, the groups differed by ethnicity, prescription medication use, and body mass index (BMI), where the MASLD group had greater ethnic diversity, medication use, and BMI. In addition, the MASLD group had a zero to mild score of fibrosis.

Overall, energy intake didn’t differ significantly between the two groups. The control group had higher alcohol intake, likely since the MASLD group was recommended to reduce alcohol intake, though the difference was about 5 grams per day. The MASLD group also had less caffeine intake than the control group, as well as slightly lower protein intake, though the differences weren’t statistically significant.

While consumption of total carbohydrates didn’t differ significantly between the groups, participants with MASLD consumed more calories from carbohydrates than did the controls. The MASLD group consumed more calories from added and free sugars and didn’t meet recommendations for dietary fiber.

With particular food groups, participants with MASLD ate significantly fewer whole grains, red and orange fruits, and leafy green vegetables. When consuming fruit, those with MASLD were more likely to drink juice than eat whole fruit. These findings could be relevant when considering high sugar intake and low dietary fiber, Dr. Williams said.

With dietary fat, there were no differences in total fat between the groups, but the fat profiles differed. The control group was significantly more likely to consume omega-3 fatty acids, including alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The MASLD group was less likely to consume seafood, nuts, seeds, avocado, and olive oil.

With inflammatory markers, hsCRP and CK-18 were increased in MASLD, while IL-1ß was increased in controls, which was consistently associated with higher alcohol intake among the control group. IL-6 and TNF-α didn’t differ between the groups.

Notably, dietary fats were most consistently associated with inflammatory markers, Dr. Williams said, with inflammation being positively associated with saturated fats and negatively associated with unsaturated fats.

Looking at microbiota, the alpha diversity was no different, but the beta diversity was across 162 taxa. Per bacterial species, there was an inverse relationship between MASLD and associations with unsaturated fat, as well as positive indicators of high sugar and fructose intake and low unsaturated fat and dietary fiber intake.

Beyond that, the functional pathways enriched in MASLD were associated with increased sugar and carbohydrates, reduced fiber, and reduced unsaturated fat. Lower butyrate production in MASLD was associated with low intake of nuts, seeds, and unsaturated fat.
 

In Clinical Practice

Dr. Williams suggested reinforcing AASLD guidelines and looking at diet quality, not just diet quantity. Although an energy deficit remains relevant in MASLD, macronutrient consumption matters across dietary fats, fibers, and sugars.

Future avenues for research include metabolomic pathways related to bile acids and fatty acids, she said, as well as disentangling metabolic syndrome from MASLD outcomes.

Session moderator Olivier Barbier, PhD, professor of pharmacy at Laval University in Quebec, Canada, asked about microbiome differences across countries. Dr. Williams noted the limitations in this study of looking at differences across geography and ethnicity, particularly in Australia, but said the species identified were consistent with those found in most literature globally.

In response to other questions after the presentation, Dr. Williams said supplements (such as omega-3 fatty acids) were included in total intake, and those taking prebiotics or probiotics were excluded from the study. In an upcoming clinical trial, she and colleagues plan to control for household microbiomes as well.

“The premise is that microbiomes are shared between households, so when you’re doing these sorts of large-scale clinical studies, if you’re going to look at the microbiome, then you should control for one of the major confounding variables,” said Mark Sundrud, PhD, professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Center for Digestive Health in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Dr. Sundrud, who wasn’t involved with this study, presented on the role of bile acids in mucosal immune cell function at DDW.

“We’ve done a collaborative study looking at microbiomes and bile acids in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients versus controls,” which included consideration of households, he said. “We were able to see more intrinsic disease-specific changes.”

Dr. Williams declared no relevant disclosures. Dr. Sundrud has served as a scientific adviser to Sage Therapeutics.

TOPLINE:

Healthier sleep is associated with lower odds of developing a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research revealed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Due to the widespread prevalence of sleep issues and a growing burden of digestive diseases globally, researchers investigated the association between sleep quality and digestive disorders in a prospective cohort study of 410,586 people in the UK Biobank.
• Five individual sleep behaviors were assessed: sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, daytime sleepiness, and chronotype.
• A healthy sleep was defined as a morning chronotype, 7-8 hours of sleep duration, no self-reported snoring, never or rare insomnia, and a low frequency of daytime sleepiness, for a score of 5/5.
• The study investigators tracked the development of 16 digestive diseases over a mean period of 13.2 years.
• As well as looking at healthy sleep scores, researchers considered genetic susceptibility to gastrointestinal conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with a healthy sleep score had 28% lower odds of developing any digestive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) than those with a sleep score of 0/1.
• Of the 16 digestive diseases looked at, the reduction of risk was highest for irritable bowel syndrome at 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.57).
• A healthy sleep score was also associated with 37% reduced odds for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.71), 35% lower chance for peptic ulcer (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.058-0.74), 34% reduced chance for dyspepsia (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and a 25% lower risk for diverticulosis (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80).
• High genetic risk and poor sleep scores were also associated with increased odds (53% to > 200%) of developing digestive diseases.
• However, healthy sleep reduced the risk for digestive diseases regardless of genetic susceptibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the potential holistic impact of different sleep behaviors in mitigating the risk of digestive diseases in clinical practice,” wrote Shiyi Yu, MD, of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

Poor sleep can also change our gut microbiome, Dr. Yu told this news organization. If you don’t sleep well, the repair of the gut lining cannot be finished during the night.

SOURCE:

The study was presented at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), 2024, annual meeting.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Yu had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Healthier sleep is associated with lower odds of developing a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research revealed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Due to the widespread prevalence of sleep issues and a growing burden of digestive diseases globally, researchers investigated the association between sleep quality and digestive disorders in a prospective cohort study of 410,586 people in the UK Biobank.
• Five individual sleep behaviors were assessed: sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, daytime sleepiness, and chronotype.
• A healthy sleep was defined as a morning chronotype, 7-8 hours of sleep duration, no self-reported snoring, never or rare insomnia, and a low frequency of daytime sleepiness, for a score of 5/5.
• The study investigators tracked the development of 16 digestive diseases over a mean period of 13.2 years.
• As well as looking at healthy sleep scores, researchers considered genetic susceptibility to gastrointestinal conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with a healthy sleep score had 28% lower odds of developing any digestive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) than those with a sleep score of 0/1.
• Of the 16 digestive diseases looked at, the reduction of risk was highest for irritable bowel syndrome at 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.57).
• A healthy sleep score was also associated with 37% reduced odds for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.71), 35% lower chance for peptic ulcer (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.058-0.74), 34% reduced chance for dyspepsia (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and a 25% lower risk for diverticulosis (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80).
• High genetic risk and poor sleep scores were also associated with increased odds (53% to > 200%) of developing digestive diseases.
• However, healthy sleep reduced the risk for digestive diseases regardless of genetic susceptibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the potential holistic impact of different sleep behaviors in mitigating the risk of digestive diseases in clinical practice,” wrote Shiyi Yu, MD, of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

Poor sleep can also change our gut microbiome, Dr. Yu told this news organization. If you don’t sleep well, the repair of the gut lining cannot be finished during the night.

SOURCE:

The study was presented at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), 2024, annual meeting.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Yu had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Healthier sleep is associated with lower odds of developing a wide range of gastrointestinal conditions, regardless of genetic susceptibility, new research revealed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Due to the widespread prevalence of sleep issues and a growing burden of digestive diseases globally, researchers investigated the association between sleep quality and digestive disorders in a prospective cohort study of 410,586 people in the UK Biobank.
• Five individual sleep behaviors were assessed: sleep duration, insomnia, snoring, daytime sleepiness, and chronotype.
• A healthy sleep was defined as a morning chronotype, 7-8 hours of sleep duration, no self-reported snoring, never or rare insomnia, and a low frequency of daytime sleepiness, for a score of 5/5.
• The study investigators tracked the development of 16 digestive diseases over a mean period of 13.2 years.
• As well as looking at healthy sleep scores, researchers considered genetic susceptibility to gastrointestinal conditions.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants with a healthy sleep score had 28% lower odds of developing any digestive disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.69-0.75) than those with a sleep score of 0/1.
• Of the 16 digestive diseases looked at, the reduction of risk was highest for irritable bowel syndrome at 50% (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.57).
• A healthy sleep score was also associated with 37% reduced odds for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (formerly known as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.55-0.71), 35% lower chance for peptic ulcer (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.058-0.74), 34% reduced chance for dyspepsia (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.75), and a 25% lower risk for diverticulosis (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71-0.80).
• High genetic risk and poor sleep scores were also associated with increased odds (53% to > 200%) of developing digestive diseases.
• However, healthy sleep reduced the risk for digestive diseases regardless of genetic susceptibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings underscore the potential holistic impact of different sleep behaviors in mitigating the risk of digestive diseases in clinical practice,” wrote Shiyi Yu, MD, of Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, and colleagues.

Poor sleep can also change our gut microbiome, Dr. Yu told this news organization. If you don’t sleep well, the repair of the gut lining cannot be finished during the night.

SOURCE:

The study was presented at the Digestive Disease Week® (DDW), 2024, annual meeting.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Yu had no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON — Statin use may contribute to a significant reduction in the risk of new primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a study presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2024.

Statin use was associated with an 86% risk reduction, and only .09% of IBD patients who took statins developed PSC.

“We all take care of patients with liver disease, and we know what a significant burden PSC is. These patients have a significantly elevated risk of enhanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, multiple cancers, and cholangitis and sepsis,” said lead author Chiraag Kulkarni, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford (California) University Medical School.

“Despite this, we have to date no proven effective medical care for PSC,” he said. “However, over the last decade, there is growing evidence that statins may be beneficial in liver disease, and we see this evidence base stretching from basic science to clinical data.”

Dr. Kulkarni pointed to numerous studies that indicate statins may slow disease progression in steatotic liver disease, viral hepatitis, and cirrhosis. But could statins prevent the onset of PSC?

Because PSC incidence is low, Dr. Kulkarni and colleagues focused on a patient population with higher prevalence — those with IBD, who have an overall lifetime risk of 2% to 7%. The research team followed patients from the date of IBD diagnosis.

Among 33,813 patients with IBD in a national dataset from 2018 onward, 8813 used statins. Statin users tended to be older than non–statin users.

Overall, 181 patients developed new onset PSC during a median follow-up of about 45 months after initial IBD diagnosis. Only eight statin users (.09%) developed PSC, compared with 173 patients (.69%) in the control group.

In a propensity score-matched analysis, statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing PSC (HR .14, P < .001). The associated E-value was 5.5, which suggested a robust finding and unlikely to be due to non-visible confounding.

The findings were consistent across secondary and sensitivity analyses, including by age, duration of statin use, and type of statin. For instance, for patients under age 50 where PSC is more likely to occur, statins were associated with a 90% reduction in PSC risk.

“We take away two things from this. First, it’s suggested that a protective effect occurs at ages where PSC is most likely to occur,” Dr. Kulkarni said. “Second, in combination with our propensity score-matched analysis, the results we are observing are not due to a survival bias, where the patients who survive to an age where statins are prescribed simply have a biologically different predilection for developing PSC.”

Statins also protected against PSC in both ulcerative colitis (HR .21) and Crohn’s disease (HR .15), as well as both women (HR .16) and men (HR .22).

Given the uncertainty about the optimal duration of statin therapy for a protective effect, Dr. Kulkarni and colleagues looked at a lag time of 12 months. They found statins were associated with an 84% risk reduction (HR .16), which was similar to the primary analysis.

The study was limited by the inability to capture dosage data or medication adherence. The findings raised several questions, Dr. Kulkarni said, such as the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. For instance, the underlying mechanisms appear to be related to the pleiotropic effect of statins, modulation of gut inflammation, and alterations in bile acid profiles.

“This is really fascinating and interesting. I wonder about this as a primary prevention strategy in those who have normal cholesterol. Could this work or not?” said Gyongyi Szabo, MD, AGAF, chief academic officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, who was a moderator for the Liver & Biliary Section Distinguished Abstract Plenary Session.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

WASHINGTON — Statin use may contribute to a significant reduction in the risk of new primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a study presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2024.

Statin use was associated with an 86% risk reduction, and only .09% of IBD patients who took statins developed PSC.

“We all take care of patients with liver disease, and we know what a significant burden PSC is. These patients have a significantly elevated risk of enhanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, multiple cancers, and cholangitis and sepsis,” said lead author Chiraag Kulkarni, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford (California) University Medical School.

“Despite this, we have to date no proven effective medical care for PSC,” he said. “However, over the last decade, there is growing evidence that statins may be beneficial in liver disease, and we see this evidence base stretching from basic science to clinical data.”

Dr. Kulkarni pointed to numerous studies that indicate statins may slow disease progression in steatotic liver disease, viral hepatitis, and cirrhosis. But could statins prevent the onset of PSC?

Because PSC incidence is low, Dr. Kulkarni and colleagues focused on a patient population with higher prevalence — those with IBD, who have an overall lifetime risk of 2% to 7%. The research team followed patients from the date of IBD diagnosis.

Among 33,813 patients with IBD in a national dataset from 2018 onward, 8813 used statins. Statin users tended to be older than non–statin users.

Overall, 181 patients developed new onset PSC during a median follow-up of about 45 months after initial IBD diagnosis. Only eight statin users (.09%) developed PSC, compared with 173 patients (.69%) in the control group.

In a propensity score-matched analysis, statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing PSC (HR .14, P < .001). The associated E-value was 5.5, which suggested a robust finding and unlikely to be due to non-visible confounding.

The findings were consistent across secondary and sensitivity analyses, including by age, duration of statin use, and type of statin. For instance, for patients under age 50 where PSC is more likely to occur, statins were associated with a 90% reduction in PSC risk.

“We take away two things from this. First, it’s suggested that a protective effect occurs at ages where PSC is most likely to occur,” Dr. Kulkarni said. “Second, in combination with our propensity score-matched analysis, the results we are observing are not due to a survival bias, where the patients who survive to an age where statins are prescribed simply have a biologically different predilection for developing PSC.”

Statins also protected against PSC in both ulcerative colitis (HR .21) and Crohn’s disease (HR .15), as well as both women (HR .16) and men (HR .22).

Given the uncertainty about the optimal duration of statin therapy for a protective effect, Dr. Kulkarni and colleagues looked at a lag time of 12 months. They found statins were associated with an 84% risk reduction (HR .16), which was similar to the primary analysis.

The study was limited by the inability to capture dosage data or medication adherence. The findings raised several questions, Dr. Kulkarni said, such as the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. For instance, the underlying mechanisms appear to be related to the pleiotropic effect of statins, modulation of gut inflammation, and alterations in bile acid profiles.

“This is really fascinating and interesting. I wonder about this as a primary prevention strategy in those who have normal cholesterol. Could this work or not?” said Gyongyi Szabo, MD, AGAF, chief academic officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, who was a moderator for the Liver & Biliary Section Distinguished Abstract Plenary Session.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

WASHINGTON — Statin use may contribute to a significant reduction in the risk of new primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a study presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2024.

Statin use was associated with an 86% risk reduction, and only .09% of IBD patients who took statins developed PSC.

“We all take care of patients with liver disease, and we know what a significant burden PSC is. These patients have a significantly elevated risk of enhanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, multiple cancers, and cholangitis and sepsis,” said lead author Chiraag Kulkarni, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford (California) University Medical School.

“Despite this, we have to date no proven effective medical care for PSC,” he said. “However, over the last decade, there is growing evidence that statins may be beneficial in liver disease, and we see this evidence base stretching from basic science to clinical data.”

Dr. Kulkarni pointed to numerous studies that indicate statins may slow disease progression in steatotic liver disease, viral hepatitis, and cirrhosis. But could statins prevent the onset of PSC?

Because PSC incidence is low, Dr. Kulkarni and colleagues focused on a patient population with higher prevalence — those with IBD, who have an overall lifetime risk of 2% to 7%. The research team followed patients from the date of IBD diagnosis.

Among 33,813 patients with IBD in a national dataset from 2018 onward, 8813 used statins. Statin users tended to be older than non–statin users.

Overall, 181 patients developed new onset PSC during a median follow-up of about 45 months after initial IBD diagnosis. Only eight statin users (.09%) developed PSC, compared with 173 patients (.69%) in the control group.

In a propensity score-matched analysis, statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing PSC (HR .14, P < .001). The associated E-value was 5.5, which suggested a robust finding and unlikely to be due to non-visible confounding.

The findings were consistent across secondary and sensitivity analyses, including by age, duration of statin use, and type of statin. For instance, for patients under age 50 where PSC is more likely to occur, statins were associated with a 90% reduction in PSC risk.

“We take away two things from this. First, it’s suggested that a protective effect occurs at ages where PSC is most likely to occur,” Dr. Kulkarni said. “Second, in combination with our propensity score-matched analysis, the results we are observing are not due to a survival bias, where the patients who survive to an age where statins are prescribed simply have a biologically different predilection for developing PSC.”

Statins also protected against PSC in both ulcerative colitis (HR .21) and Crohn’s disease (HR .15), as well as both women (HR .16) and men (HR .22).

Given the uncertainty about the optimal duration of statin therapy for a protective effect, Dr. Kulkarni and colleagues looked at a lag time of 12 months. They found statins were associated with an 84% risk reduction (HR .16), which was similar to the primary analysis.

The study was limited by the inability to capture dosage data or medication adherence. The findings raised several questions, Dr. Kulkarni said, such as the underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. For instance, the underlying mechanisms appear to be related to the pleiotropic effect of statins, modulation of gut inflammation, and alterations in bile acid profiles.

“This is really fascinating and interesting. I wonder about this as a primary prevention strategy in those who have normal cholesterol. Could this work or not?” said Gyongyi Szabo, MD, AGAF, chief academic officer at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, who was a moderator for the Liver & Biliary Section Distinguished Abstract Plenary Session.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

One in nine patients with steatotic liver disease reported concurrent alcohol use, and more than 11% reported high-risk consumption, a national study of more than a million US veterans found.

Moreover, the combination of steatotic liver disease and high-risk alcohol intake carried a more than 43% higher long-term risk of liver cirrhosis compared with no alcohol use, according to researchers led by Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Veterans Affairs Healthcare System Palo Alto, at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

However, the study found that “reducing alcohol use lowers risk of cirrhosis, emphasizing the importance of timely alcohol use assessment and early interventions to address high-risk alcohol use in steatotic liver disease,” Dr. Wong and associates wrote in Gastroenterology.

Although concurrent moderate to heavy alcohol intake would be expected to lead more rapidly to liver disease progression, the existing literature has been conflicting, the authors noted. Several studies have even found moderate alcohol associated with a lower risk of advanced liver disease among MASLD patients, including that by Dunn et al. .
 

The Study

MASLD patients were identified through the US Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017, with follow-up through December 31, 2022.

Alcohol use was assessed by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Concise (AUDIT-C) scores and was categorized as follows: no alcohol (AUDIT-C = 0), low-risk alcohol use (AUDIT-C 1-2 for women and 1–3 for men), and high-risk alcohol (AUDIT-C ≥ 3 for women and ≥ 4 for men).

Among the 1,156,189 veterans with MASLD, 54.2% reported no alcohol, 34.6% low-risk alcohol, and 11.2% high-risk alcohol use. In median follow-up of nine to 10 years, incidence rates of cirrhosis were .53 per 100 person-years for no use, .42 for low-risk use, and .76 for high-risk use.

In contrast to patients with baseline high-risk alcohol intake who reported no change in use, those who decreased their alcohol intake during follow-up experienced a 39% reduction in the long-term risk of cirrhosis, for a hazard ratio of .61 (95% CI, .45-.83, P < .01).

Dr. Wong

One in nine patients with steatotic liver disease reported concurrent alcohol use, and more than 11% reported high-risk consumption, a national study of more than a million US veterans found.

Moreover, the combination of steatotic liver disease and high-risk alcohol intake carried a more than 43% higher long-term risk of liver cirrhosis compared with no alcohol use, according to researchers led by Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Veterans Affairs Healthcare System Palo Alto, at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

However, the study found that “reducing alcohol use lowers risk of cirrhosis, emphasizing the importance of timely alcohol use assessment and early interventions to address high-risk alcohol use in steatotic liver disease,” Dr. Wong and associates wrote in Gastroenterology.

Although concurrent moderate to heavy alcohol intake would be expected to lead more rapidly to liver disease progression, the existing literature has been conflicting, the authors noted. Several studies have even found moderate alcohol associated with a lower risk of advanced liver disease among MASLD patients, including that by Dunn et al. .
 

The Study

MASLD patients were identified through the US Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017, with follow-up through December 31, 2022.

Alcohol use was assessed by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Concise (AUDIT-C) scores and was categorized as follows: no alcohol (AUDIT-C = 0), low-risk alcohol use (AUDIT-C 1-2 for women and 1–3 for men), and high-risk alcohol (AUDIT-C ≥ 3 for women and ≥ 4 for men).

Among the 1,156,189 veterans with MASLD, 54.2% reported no alcohol, 34.6% low-risk alcohol, and 11.2% high-risk alcohol use. In median follow-up of nine to 10 years, incidence rates of cirrhosis were .53 per 100 person-years for no use, .42 for low-risk use, and .76 for high-risk use.

In contrast to patients with baseline high-risk alcohol intake who reported no change in use, those who decreased their alcohol intake during follow-up experienced a 39% reduction in the long-term risk of cirrhosis, for a hazard ratio of .61 (95% CI, .45-.83, P < .01).

Dr. Wong

One in nine patients with steatotic liver disease reported concurrent alcohol use, and more than 11% reported high-risk consumption, a national study of more than a million US veterans found.

Moreover, the combination of steatotic liver disease and high-risk alcohol intake carried a more than 43% higher long-term risk of liver cirrhosis compared with no alcohol use, according to researchers led by Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Veterans Affairs Healthcare System Palo Alto, at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California.

However, the study found that “reducing alcohol use lowers risk of cirrhosis, emphasizing the importance of timely alcohol use assessment and early interventions to address high-risk alcohol use in steatotic liver disease,” Dr. Wong and associates wrote in Gastroenterology.

Although concurrent moderate to heavy alcohol intake would be expected to lead more rapidly to liver disease progression, the existing literature has been conflicting, the authors noted. Several studies have even found moderate alcohol associated with a lower risk of advanced liver disease among MASLD patients, including that by Dunn et al. .
 

The Study

MASLD patients were identified through the US Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017, with follow-up through December 31, 2022.

Alcohol use was assessed by Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Concise (AUDIT-C) scores and was categorized as follows: no alcohol (AUDIT-C = 0), low-risk alcohol use (AUDIT-C 1-2 for women and 1–3 for men), and high-risk alcohol (AUDIT-C ≥ 3 for women and ≥ 4 for men).

Among the 1,156,189 veterans with MASLD, 54.2% reported no alcohol, 34.6% low-risk alcohol, and 11.2% high-risk alcohol use. In median follow-up of nine to 10 years, incidence rates of cirrhosis were .53 per 100 person-years for no use, .42 for low-risk use, and .76 for high-risk use.

In contrast to patients with baseline high-risk alcohol intake who reported no change in use, those who decreased their alcohol intake during follow-up experienced a 39% reduction in the long-term risk of cirrhosis, for a hazard ratio of .61 (95% CI, .45-.83, P < .01).

Dr. Wong

Replacing meat with plant-based proteins for just one meal reduced ammonia levels in patients with cirrhosis, a proof-of-concept study showed.

High levels of serum ammonia after protein loads may predict poor outcomes, including hepatic encephalopathy (HE), in patients with cirrhosis, whereas vegetable protein diets are associated with decreased serum ammonia, according to Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and the Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, and colleagues.

However, changing from meat-based to non–meat-based meals is difficult to do over a long period.

“Previous studies have changed people’s diets completely, expecting them to be on a meatless or vegetarian diet with a similar amount of protein when they’ve been eating meat their entire life,” Dr. Bajaj told this news organization. “That’s not really sustainable in the long run.”

“Our hope is that occasional meal substitutions would be beneficial,” he said. “This study is a first step toward seeing if that works.”

The study was published online on May 2 in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

Meal Type Affects Ammonia Levels Differently

The researchers randomized 30 men with cirrhosis and on a traditional Western meat-based diet into three groups, where they received a pork/beef burger, a vegetarian bean burger, or a burger made of vegan meat substitute. The burgers provided 20 g of protein each, and all meals contained low-fat potato chips, a whole-grain bun, water, and no condiments.

The participants’ median age was 66 years in the meat and vegetarian arms and 71 years in the vegan arm. About half had diabetes, and half had prior HE and were evenly distributed across the treatment arms. Cirrhosis etiologies included hepatitis C virus infection, alcohol, and metabolic-associated steatohepatitis.

Stool microbiome characteristics, changes in ammonia, and metabolomics were compared between and within groups.

In the 3 days prior to the intervention, participants had similar intakes of red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, bread, cheese, rice, fruits, vegetables, yogurt, coffee, tea, and carbonated caffeinated and decaffeinated beverages.

Blood for metabolomics and ammonia was drawn at baseline and hourly for 3 hours post-meal while patients were under observation. All participants completed the entire meal, as shown subsequently by markers of food consumption, and none developed HE symptoms during the observation period.

The composition of the stool microbiome was similar at baseline across groups and remained unchanged. However, serum ammonia increased from baseline in the meat group but not in the vegetarian or vegan groups. The serum microbiome was not analyzed because of the low yield.

Serum metabolomics showed beneficial changes over time associated with branched-chain amino acid metabolism and urea cycle, phospholipid, and acylcarnitine levels in the vegetarian and vegan meal groups compared with the meat-based group.

In contrast, alterations in lipid profiles (higher sphingomyelins and lower lysophospholipids) were seen in the meat group.

The study was limited by its relatively small sample size, focus on the impact of only one meal, and lack of clinical outcomes, sarcopenia assessment, cognitive testing, or urine collection.

“Intermittent meat substitution with vegan or vegetarian alternatives could be helpful in reducing ammonia generation in cirrhosis,” the authors concluded.

The next step “is to substitute one meal two or three times a week, so we can move forward with this analysis and eventually be able to show that the liver is in better shape,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Meanwhile, clinicians should encourage patients with liver disease who eat meat regularly to try to substitute it with protein from plant or dairy sources, at least occasionally, he said. When doing so, “clinicians should ask their patients’ preferences before assuming that they will do everything that you ask them to do because nutrition in cirrhosis is really critical — not only what they eat but also when they eat. Working with a dietitian, like we did in our study, is critical, or at least having access to one if you don’t have one in your practice.”

Positive Results From a Simple Change

Commenting on the study, Nancy S. Reau, MD, section chief, hepatology and associate director of organ transplantation at Rush Medical College in Chicago, said, “My biggest concern is making sure patients are ingesting enough quality protein and calories because anorexia is a common complication in cirrhosis, and sarcopenia is associated with poor outcomes.

“You don’t want to suggest a change that will result in eating less or skipping a meal,” she said. So, “it is encouraging to see that suggesting a small change, just one meal a day, that may not impact calorie intake could have positive results.”

Dr. Reau added that “it is great to see evidence that this small change also could be a way of decreasing the risk of HE while not compromising on patient nutrition.”

Larger studies with outcome data showing that this approach could prevent readmission in patients hospitalized for HE would be helpful, she said.

The study was partly supported by the ACG Clinical Research Award, VA Merit Review 2I01CX001076, I01CX002472, and NIAAA RO1AA29398. Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing meat with plant-based proteins for just one meal reduced ammonia levels in patients with cirrhosis, a proof-of-concept study showed.

High levels of serum ammonia after protein loads may predict poor outcomes, including hepatic encephalopathy (HE), in patients with cirrhosis, whereas vegetable protein diets are associated with decreased serum ammonia, according to Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and the Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, and colleagues.

However, changing from meat-based to non–meat-based meals is difficult to do over a long period.

“Previous studies have changed people’s diets completely, expecting them to be on a meatless or vegetarian diet with a similar amount of protein when they’ve been eating meat their entire life,” Dr. Bajaj told this news organization. “That’s not really sustainable in the long run.”

“Our hope is that occasional meal substitutions would be beneficial,” he said. “This study is a first step toward seeing if that works.”

The study was published online on May 2 in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

Meal Type Affects Ammonia Levels Differently

The researchers randomized 30 men with cirrhosis and on a traditional Western meat-based diet into three groups, where they received a pork/beef burger, a vegetarian bean burger, or a burger made of vegan meat substitute. The burgers provided 20 g of protein each, and all meals contained low-fat potato chips, a whole-grain bun, water, and no condiments.

The participants’ median age was 66 years in the meat and vegetarian arms and 71 years in the vegan arm. About half had diabetes, and half had prior HE and were evenly distributed across the treatment arms. Cirrhosis etiologies included hepatitis C virus infection, alcohol, and metabolic-associated steatohepatitis.

Stool microbiome characteristics, changes in ammonia, and metabolomics were compared between and within groups.

In the 3 days prior to the intervention, participants had similar intakes of red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, bread, cheese, rice, fruits, vegetables, yogurt, coffee, tea, and carbonated caffeinated and decaffeinated beverages.

Blood for metabolomics and ammonia was drawn at baseline and hourly for 3 hours post-meal while patients were under observation. All participants completed the entire meal, as shown subsequently by markers of food consumption, and none developed HE symptoms during the observation period.

The composition of the stool microbiome was similar at baseline across groups and remained unchanged. However, serum ammonia increased from baseline in the meat group but not in the vegetarian or vegan groups. The serum microbiome was not analyzed because of the low yield.

Serum metabolomics showed beneficial changes over time associated with branched-chain amino acid metabolism and urea cycle, phospholipid, and acylcarnitine levels in the vegetarian and vegan meal groups compared with the meat-based group.

In contrast, alterations in lipid profiles (higher sphingomyelins and lower lysophospholipids) were seen in the meat group.

The study was limited by its relatively small sample size, focus on the impact of only one meal, and lack of clinical outcomes, sarcopenia assessment, cognitive testing, or urine collection.

“Intermittent meat substitution with vegan or vegetarian alternatives could be helpful in reducing ammonia generation in cirrhosis,” the authors concluded.

The next step “is to substitute one meal two or three times a week, so we can move forward with this analysis and eventually be able to show that the liver is in better shape,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Meanwhile, clinicians should encourage patients with liver disease who eat meat regularly to try to substitute it with protein from plant or dairy sources, at least occasionally, he said. When doing so, “clinicians should ask their patients’ preferences before assuming that they will do everything that you ask them to do because nutrition in cirrhosis is really critical — not only what they eat but also when they eat. Working with a dietitian, like we did in our study, is critical, or at least having access to one if you don’t have one in your practice.”

Positive Results From a Simple Change

Commenting on the study, Nancy S. Reau, MD, section chief, hepatology and associate director of organ transplantation at Rush Medical College in Chicago, said, “My biggest concern is making sure patients are ingesting enough quality protein and calories because anorexia is a common complication in cirrhosis, and sarcopenia is associated with poor outcomes.

“You don’t want to suggest a change that will result in eating less or skipping a meal,” she said. So, “it is encouraging to see that suggesting a small change, just one meal a day, that may not impact calorie intake could have positive results.”

Dr. Reau added that “it is great to see evidence that this small change also could be a way of decreasing the risk of HE while not compromising on patient nutrition.”

Larger studies with outcome data showing that this approach could prevent readmission in patients hospitalized for HE would be helpful, she said.

The study was partly supported by the ACG Clinical Research Award, VA Merit Review 2I01CX001076, I01CX002472, and NIAAA RO1AA29398. Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Replacing meat with plant-based proteins for just one meal reduced ammonia levels in patients with cirrhosis, a proof-of-concept study showed.

High levels of serum ammonia after protein loads may predict poor outcomes, including hepatic encephalopathy (HE), in patients with cirrhosis, whereas vegetable protein diets are associated with decreased serum ammonia, according to Jasmohan Bajaj, MD, a gastroenterologist at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and the Richmond VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, and colleagues.

However, changing from meat-based to non–meat-based meals is difficult to do over a long period.

“Previous studies have changed people’s diets completely, expecting them to be on a meatless or vegetarian diet with a similar amount of protein when they’ve been eating meat their entire life,” Dr. Bajaj told this news organization. “That’s not really sustainable in the long run.”

“Our hope is that occasional meal substitutions would be beneficial,” he said. “This study is a first step toward seeing if that works.”

The study was published online on May 2 in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

Meal Type Affects Ammonia Levels Differently

The researchers randomized 30 men with cirrhosis and on a traditional Western meat-based diet into three groups, where they received a pork/beef burger, a vegetarian bean burger, or a burger made of vegan meat substitute. The burgers provided 20 g of protein each, and all meals contained low-fat potato chips, a whole-grain bun, water, and no condiments.

The participants’ median age was 66 years in the meat and vegetarian arms and 71 years in the vegan arm. About half had diabetes, and half had prior HE and were evenly distributed across the treatment arms. Cirrhosis etiologies included hepatitis C virus infection, alcohol, and metabolic-associated steatohepatitis.

Stool microbiome characteristics, changes in ammonia, and metabolomics were compared between and within groups.

In the 3 days prior to the intervention, participants had similar intakes of red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, bread, cheese, rice, fruits, vegetables, yogurt, coffee, tea, and carbonated caffeinated and decaffeinated beverages.

Blood for metabolomics and ammonia was drawn at baseline and hourly for 3 hours post-meal while patients were under observation. All participants completed the entire meal, as shown subsequently by markers of food consumption, and none developed HE symptoms during the observation period.

The composition of the stool microbiome was similar at baseline across groups and remained unchanged. However, serum ammonia increased from baseline in the meat group but not in the vegetarian or vegan groups. The serum microbiome was not analyzed because of the low yield.

Serum metabolomics showed beneficial changes over time associated with branched-chain amino acid metabolism and urea cycle, phospholipid, and acylcarnitine levels in the vegetarian and vegan meal groups compared with the meat-based group.

In contrast, alterations in lipid profiles (higher sphingomyelins and lower lysophospholipids) were seen in the meat group.

The study was limited by its relatively small sample size, focus on the impact of only one meal, and lack of clinical outcomes, sarcopenia assessment, cognitive testing, or urine collection.

“Intermittent meat substitution with vegan or vegetarian alternatives could be helpful in reducing ammonia generation in cirrhosis,” the authors concluded.

The next step “is to substitute one meal two or three times a week, so we can move forward with this analysis and eventually be able to show that the liver is in better shape,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Meanwhile, clinicians should encourage patients with liver disease who eat meat regularly to try to substitute it with protein from plant or dairy sources, at least occasionally, he said. When doing so, “clinicians should ask their patients’ preferences before assuming that they will do everything that you ask them to do because nutrition in cirrhosis is really critical — not only what they eat but also when they eat. Working with a dietitian, like we did in our study, is critical, or at least having access to one if you don’t have one in your practice.”

Positive Results From a Simple Change

Commenting on the study, Nancy S. Reau, MD, section chief, hepatology and associate director of organ transplantation at Rush Medical College in Chicago, said, “My biggest concern is making sure patients are ingesting enough quality protein and calories because anorexia is a common complication in cirrhosis, and sarcopenia is associated with poor outcomes.

“You don’t want to suggest a change that will result in eating less or skipping a meal,” she said. So, “it is encouraging to see that suggesting a small change, just one meal a day, that may not impact calorie intake could have positive results.”

Dr. Reau added that “it is great to see evidence that this small change also could be a way of decreasing the risk of HE while not compromising on patient nutrition.”

Larger studies with outcome data showing that this approach could prevent readmission in patients hospitalized for HE would be helpful, she said.

The study was partly supported by the ACG Clinical Research Award, VA Merit Review 2I01CX001076, I01CX002472, and NIAAA RO1AA29398. Dr. Bajaj and Dr. Reau reported no conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Probiotics appear to be beneficial for patients with cirrhosis, showing a reversal of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), improvement in liver function measures, and regulation of gut dysbiosis, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

They also improve quality of life and have a favorable safety profile, adding to their potential as a promising intervention for treating cirrhosis, the study authors wrote.

“As currently one of the top 10 leading causes of death globally, cirrhosis imposes a great health burden in many countries,” wrote lead author Xing Yang of the Health Management Research Institute at the People’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences in Nanning, China, and colleagues.

“The burden has escalated at the worldwide level since 1990, partly because of population growth and aging,” the authors wrote. “Thus, it is meaningful to explore effective treatments for reversing cirrhosis and preventing severe liver function and even systemic damage.”

The study was published online in Frontiers in Medicine .
 

Analyzing Probiotic Trials

The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 randomized controlled trials among 2084 adults with cirrhosis, comparing the effects of probiotic intervention and control treatments, including placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active controls such as lactulose and rifaximin. The studies spanned 14 countries and included 1049 patients in the probiotic groups and 1035 in the control groups.

The research team calculated risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for outcomes such as HE reversal, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, safety and tolerability of probiotics, liver function, and quality of life.

Among 17 studies involving patients with different stages of HE, as compared with the control group, probiotics significantly reversed minimal HE (RR, 1.54) and improved HE (RR, 1.94). In particular, the probiotic VSL#3 — which contains Streptococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus — produced more significant HE improvement (RR, 1.44) compared with other types of probiotics.

In addition, probiotics appeared to improve liver function by reducing MELD scores (SMD, −0.57) but didn’t show a difference in other liver function parameters. There were numerical but not significant reductions in mortality and serum inflammatory cytokine expression, including endotoxin, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha.

Probiotics also improved quality-of-life scores (SMD, 0.51) and gut flora (SMD, 1.67). For gut flora, the numbers of the Lactobacillus group were significantly higher after probiotic treatment, but there wasn’t a significant difference for Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Bacteroidaceae, and Fusobacterium.

Finally, compared with control treatments, including placebo, standard therapy, and active controls such as lactulose and rifaximin, probiotics showed higher safety and tolerability profiles, causing a significantly lower incidence of serious adverse events (RR, 0.71).

Longer intervention times reduced the risk for overt HE development, hospitalization, and infections compared with shorter intervention times.

“Probiotics contribute to the reduction of ammonia levels and the improvement of neuropsychometric or neurophysiological status, leading to the reversal of HE associated with cirrhosis,” the study authors wrote. “Moreover, they induce favorable changes in gut flora and quality of life. Therefore, probiotics emerge as a promising intervention for reversing the onset of cirrhosis and preventing disease progression.”
 

Considering Variables

The authors noted several limitations, including a high or unclear risk for bias in 28 studies and the lack of data on the intervention effect for various types of probiotics or treatment durations.

“Overall, despite a number of methodological concerns, the study shows that probiotics can improve some disease markers in cirrhosis,” Phillipp Hartmann, MD, assistant professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“One of the methodological concerns is that the authors compared probiotics with a multitude of different treatments, including fiber and lactulose (which are both prebiotics), rifaximin (which is an antibiotic), standard of care, placebo, or no therapy,” he said. “This might contribute to the sometimes-contradictory findings between the different studies. The ideal comparison would be a specific probiotic formulation versus a placebo to understand what the probiotic actually does.”

Dr. Hartmann, who wasn’t involved with this study, has published a review on the potential of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in liver disease. He and colleagues noted the mechanisms that improve a disrupted intestinal barrier, microbial translocation, and altered gut microbiome metabolism.

“Over the last few years, we and others have studied the intestinal microbiota in various liver diseases, including alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease,” he said. “Essentially, all studies support the notion that probiotics improve the microbial structure in the gut by increasing the beneficial and decreasing the potentially pathogenic microbes.”

However, probiotics and supplements are unregulated, Dr. Hartmann noted. Many different probiotic mixes and dosages have been tested in clinical trials, and additional studies are needed to determine the best formulations and dosages.

“Usually, the best outcomes can be achieved with a higher number of strains included in the probiotic formulation (10-30+) and a higher number of colony-forming units at 30-50+ billion per day,” he said.

The study was supported by funds from the Science and Technology Major Project of Guangxi, Guangxi Key Research and Development Program, and Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hartmann reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Probiotics appear to be beneficial for patients with cirrhosis, showing a reversal of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), improvement in liver function measures, and regulation of gut dysbiosis, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

They also improve quality of life and have a favorable safety profile, adding to their potential as a promising intervention for treating cirrhosis, the study authors wrote.

“As currently one of the top 10 leading causes of death globally, cirrhosis imposes a great health burden in many countries,” wrote lead author Xing Yang of the Health Management Research Institute at the People’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences in Nanning, China, and colleagues.

“The burden has escalated at the worldwide level since 1990, partly because of population growth and aging,” the authors wrote. “Thus, it is meaningful to explore effective treatments for reversing cirrhosis and preventing severe liver function and even systemic damage.”

The study was published online in Frontiers in Medicine .
 

Analyzing Probiotic Trials

The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 randomized controlled trials among 2084 adults with cirrhosis, comparing the effects of probiotic intervention and control treatments, including placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active controls such as lactulose and rifaximin. The studies spanned 14 countries and included 1049 patients in the probiotic groups and 1035 in the control groups.

The research team calculated risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for outcomes such as HE reversal, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, safety and tolerability of probiotics, liver function, and quality of life.

Among 17 studies involving patients with different stages of HE, as compared with the control group, probiotics significantly reversed minimal HE (RR, 1.54) and improved HE (RR, 1.94). In particular, the probiotic VSL#3 — which contains Streptococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus — produced more significant HE improvement (RR, 1.44) compared with other types of probiotics.

In addition, probiotics appeared to improve liver function by reducing MELD scores (SMD, −0.57) but didn’t show a difference in other liver function parameters. There were numerical but not significant reductions in mortality and serum inflammatory cytokine expression, including endotoxin, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha.

Probiotics also improved quality-of-life scores (SMD, 0.51) and gut flora (SMD, 1.67). For gut flora, the numbers of the Lactobacillus group were significantly higher after probiotic treatment, but there wasn’t a significant difference for Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Bacteroidaceae, and Fusobacterium.

Finally, compared with control treatments, including placebo, standard therapy, and active controls such as lactulose and rifaximin, probiotics showed higher safety and tolerability profiles, causing a significantly lower incidence of serious adverse events (RR, 0.71).

Longer intervention times reduced the risk for overt HE development, hospitalization, and infections compared with shorter intervention times.

“Probiotics contribute to the reduction of ammonia levels and the improvement of neuropsychometric or neurophysiological status, leading to the reversal of HE associated with cirrhosis,” the study authors wrote. “Moreover, they induce favorable changes in gut flora and quality of life. Therefore, probiotics emerge as a promising intervention for reversing the onset of cirrhosis and preventing disease progression.”
 

Considering Variables

The authors noted several limitations, including a high or unclear risk for bias in 28 studies and the lack of data on the intervention effect for various types of probiotics or treatment durations.

“Overall, despite a number of methodological concerns, the study shows that probiotics can improve some disease markers in cirrhosis,” Phillipp Hartmann, MD, assistant professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“One of the methodological concerns is that the authors compared probiotics with a multitude of different treatments, including fiber and lactulose (which are both prebiotics), rifaximin (which is an antibiotic), standard of care, placebo, or no therapy,” he said. “This might contribute to the sometimes-contradictory findings between the different studies. The ideal comparison would be a specific probiotic formulation versus a placebo to understand what the probiotic actually does.”

Dr. Hartmann, who wasn’t involved with this study, has published a review on the potential of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in liver disease. He and colleagues noted the mechanisms that improve a disrupted intestinal barrier, microbial translocation, and altered gut microbiome metabolism.

“Over the last few years, we and others have studied the intestinal microbiota in various liver diseases, including alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease,” he said. “Essentially, all studies support the notion that probiotics improve the microbial structure in the gut by increasing the beneficial and decreasing the potentially pathogenic microbes.”

However, probiotics and supplements are unregulated, Dr. Hartmann noted. Many different probiotic mixes and dosages have been tested in clinical trials, and additional studies are needed to determine the best formulations and dosages.

“Usually, the best outcomes can be achieved with a higher number of strains included in the probiotic formulation (10-30+) and a higher number of colony-forming units at 30-50+ billion per day,” he said.

The study was supported by funds from the Science and Technology Major Project of Guangxi, Guangxi Key Research and Development Program, and Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hartmann reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Probiotics appear to be beneficial for patients with cirrhosis, showing a reversal of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), improvement in liver function measures, and regulation of gut dysbiosis, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

They also improve quality of life and have a favorable safety profile, adding to their potential as a promising intervention for treating cirrhosis, the study authors wrote.

“As currently one of the top 10 leading causes of death globally, cirrhosis imposes a great health burden in many countries,” wrote lead author Xing Yang of the Health Management Research Institute at the People’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences in Nanning, China, and colleagues.

“The burden has escalated at the worldwide level since 1990, partly because of population growth and aging,” the authors wrote. “Thus, it is meaningful to explore effective treatments for reversing cirrhosis and preventing severe liver function and even systemic damage.”

The study was published online in Frontiers in Medicine .
 

Analyzing Probiotic Trials

The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 randomized controlled trials among 2084 adults with cirrhosis, comparing the effects of probiotic intervention and control treatments, including placebo, no treatment, standard care, or active controls such as lactulose and rifaximin. The studies spanned 14 countries and included 1049 patients in the probiotic groups and 1035 in the control groups.

The research team calculated risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for outcomes such as HE reversal, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, safety and tolerability of probiotics, liver function, and quality of life.

Among 17 studies involving patients with different stages of HE, as compared with the control group, probiotics significantly reversed minimal HE (RR, 1.54) and improved HE (RR, 1.94). In particular, the probiotic VSL#3 — which contains Streptococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus — produced more significant HE improvement (RR, 1.44) compared with other types of probiotics.

In addition, probiotics appeared to improve liver function by reducing MELD scores (SMD, −0.57) but didn’t show a difference in other liver function parameters. There were numerical but not significant reductions in mortality and serum inflammatory cytokine expression, including endotoxin, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha.

Probiotics also improved quality-of-life scores (SMD, 0.51) and gut flora (SMD, 1.67). For gut flora, the numbers of the Lactobacillus group were significantly higher after probiotic treatment, but there wasn’t a significant difference for Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus, Bacteroidaceae, and Fusobacterium.

Finally, compared with control treatments, including placebo, standard therapy, and active controls such as lactulose and rifaximin, probiotics showed higher safety and tolerability profiles, causing a significantly lower incidence of serious adverse events (RR, 0.71).

Longer intervention times reduced the risk for overt HE development, hospitalization, and infections compared with shorter intervention times.

“Probiotics contribute to the reduction of ammonia levels and the improvement of neuropsychometric or neurophysiological status, leading to the reversal of HE associated with cirrhosis,” the study authors wrote. “Moreover, they induce favorable changes in gut flora and quality of life. Therefore, probiotics emerge as a promising intervention for reversing the onset of cirrhosis and preventing disease progression.”
 

Considering Variables

The authors noted several limitations, including a high or unclear risk for bias in 28 studies and the lack of data on the intervention effect for various types of probiotics or treatment durations.

“Overall, despite a number of methodological concerns, the study shows that probiotics can improve some disease markers in cirrhosis,” Phillipp Hartmann, MD, assistant professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

“One of the methodological concerns is that the authors compared probiotics with a multitude of different treatments, including fiber and lactulose (which are both prebiotics), rifaximin (which is an antibiotic), standard of care, placebo, or no therapy,” he said. “This might contribute to the sometimes-contradictory findings between the different studies. The ideal comparison would be a specific probiotic formulation versus a placebo to understand what the probiotic actually does.”

Dr. Hartmann, who wasn’t involved with this study, has published a review on the potential of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in liver disease. He and colleagues noted the mechanisms that improve a disrupted intestinal barrier, microbial translocation, and altered gut microbiome metabolism.

“Over the last few years, we and others have studied the intestinal microbiota in various liver diseases, including alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease,” he said. “Essentially, all studies support the notion that probiotics improve the microbial structure in the gut by increasing the beneficial and decreasing the potentially pathogenic microbes.”

However, probiotics and supplements are unregulated, Dr. Hartmann noted. Many different probiotic mixes and dosages have been tested in clinical trials, and additional studies are needed to determine the best formulations and dosages.

“Usually, the best outcomes can be achieved with a higher number of strains included in the probiotic formulation (10-30+) and a higher number of colony-forming units at 30-50+ billion per day,” he said.

The study was supported by funds from the Science and Technology Major Project of Guangxi, Guangxi Key Research and Development Program, and Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Hartmann reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Gastroenterology

January 2024

Hirano I, et al; ASCENT WORKING GROUP. Ascending to New Heights for Novel Therapeutics for Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):1-10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.09.004. Epub 2023 Sep 9. PMID: 37690772; PMCID: PMC10872872.



Åkerström JH, et al. Antireflux Surgery Versus Antireflux Medication and Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Barrett’s Esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):132-138.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.050. Epub 2023 Sep 9. PMID: 37690771.



Barnes EL, et al; AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Pouchitis and Inflammatory Pouch Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):59-85. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.015. PMID: 38128971.

February 2024

Yoo HW, et al. Helicobacter pylori Treatment and Gastric Cancer Risk After Endoscopic Resection of Dysplasia: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):313-322.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.013. Epub 2023 Oct 18. PMID: 37863270.



Yang J, et al. High Soluble Fiber Promotes Colorectal Tumorigenesis Through Modulating Gut Microbiota and Metabolites in Mice. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):323-337.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 18. PMID: 37858797.



Young E, et al. Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging Improves Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):338-340.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 14. PMID: 37839498.
 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

January 2024

Overbeek KA, et al; Dutch Familial Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance Study work group. Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in High-Risk Individuals: Incidence, Growth Rate, and Malignancy Risk. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):62-71.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.035. Epub 2023 Apr 7. PMID: 37031711.

Reddy CA, et al. Achalasia is Strongly Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Other Allergic Disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):34-41.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.013. Epub 2023 Jun 28. PMID: 37391057; PMCID: PMC10753026.

Thiruvengadam NR, et al. The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: A Microsimulation Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.028. Epub 2023 Jun 9. Erratum in: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan 19;: PMID: 37302442.

February 2024

Goodoory VC, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Mesalamine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;22(2):243-251.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.02.014. Epub 2023 Feb 27. PMID: 36858143.

Brenner DM, et al. Development and Current State of Digital Therapeutics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;22(2):222-234. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37743035.
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

January 2024

Ramirez PR, et al. Gaps and Improvement Opportunities in Post-Colonoscopy Communication. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;26(1):90-92. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.001. Epub 2023 Oct 22.

Gonzaga ER, et al. Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (G-POEM) for the Management of Gastroparesis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan; 26(1): 46-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.09.002. Epub 2023 Oct 13.



Wang D, et al. Sphincterotomy vs Sham Procedure for Pain Relief in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;26(1): 30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.003. Epub 2023 Nov 8.
 

Gastro Hep Advances

January 2024

Adeniran E, et al. Intense and Sustained Alcohol Consumption Associated With Acute Pancreatitis Warrants Early Intervention. Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan;3(1):61-63. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Sep 2.

Alkhouri N, et al. A Novel Prescription Digital Therapeutic Option for the Treatment of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan;3(1): 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.08.019. Epub 2023 Oct 1.

Gastroenterology

January 2024

Hirano I, et al; ASCENT WORKING GROUP. Ascending to New Heights for Novel Therapeutics for Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):1-10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.09.004. Epub 2023 Sep 9. PMID: 37690772; PMCID: PMC10872872.



Åkerström JH, et al. Antireflux Surgery Versus Antireflux Medication and Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Barrett’s Esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):132-138.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.050. Epub 2023 Sep 9. PMID: 37690771.



Barnes EL, et al; AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Pouchitis and Inflammatory Pouch Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):59-85. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.015. PMID: 38128971.

February 2024

Yoo HW, et al. Helicobacter pylori Treatment and Gastric Cancer Risk After Endoscopic Resection of Dysplasia: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):313-322.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.013. Epub 2023 Oct 18. PMID: 37863270.



Yang J, et al. High Soluble Fiber Promotes Colorectal Tumorigenesis Through Modulating Gut Microbiota and Metabolites in Mice. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):323-337.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 18. PMID: 37858797.



Young E, et al. Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging Improves Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):338-340.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 14. PMID: 37839498.
 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

January 2024

Overbeek KA, et al; Dutch Familial Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance Study work group. Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in High-Risk Individuals: Incidence, Growth Rate, and Malignancy Risk. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):62-71.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.035. Epub 2023 Apr 7. PMID: 37031711.

Reddy CA, et al. Achalasia is Strongly Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Other Allergic Disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):34-41.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.013. Epub 2023 Jun 28. PMID: 37391057; PMCID: PMC10753026.

Thiruvengadam NR, et al. The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: A Microsimulation Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.028. Epub 2023 Jun 9. Erratum in: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan 19;: PMID: 37302442.

February 2024

Goodoory VC, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Mesalamine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;22(2):243-251.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.02.014. Epub 2023 Feb 27. PMID: 36858143.

Brenner DM, et al. Development and Current State of Digital Therapeutics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;22(2):222-234. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37743035.
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

January 2024

Ramirez PR, et al. Gaps and Improvement Opportunities in Post-Colonoscopy Communication. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;26(1):90-92. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.001. Epub 2023 Oct 22.

Gonzaga ER, et al. Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (G-POEM) for the Management of Gastroparesis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan; 26(1): 46-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.09.002. Epub 2023 Oct 13.



Wang D, et al. Sphincterotomy vs Sham Procedure for Pain Relief in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;26(1): 30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.003. Epub 2023 Nov 8.
 

Gastro Hep Advances

January 2024

Adeniran E, et al. Intense and Sustained Alcohol Consumption Associated With Acute Pancreatitis Warrants Early Intervention. Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan;3(1):61-63. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Sep 2.

Alkhouri N, et al. A Novel Prescription Digital Therapeutic Option for the Treatment of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan;3(1): 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.08.019. Epub 2023 Oct 1.

Gastroenterology

January 2024

Hirano I, et al; ASCENT WORKING GROUP. Ascending to New Heights for Novel Therapeutics for Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):1-10. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.09.004. Epub 2023 Sep 9. PMID: 37690772; PMCID: PMC10872872.



Åkerström JH, et al. Antireflux Surgery Versus Antireflux Medication and Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Barrett’s Esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):132-138.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.050. Epub 2023 Sep 9. PMID: 37690771.



Barnes EL, et al; AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Management of Pouchitis and Inflammatory Pouch Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2024 Jan;166(1):59-85. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.015. PMID: 38128971.

February 2024

Yoo HW, et al. Helicobacter pylori Treatment and Gastric Cancer Risk After Endoscopic Resection of Dysplasia: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):313-322.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.013. Epub 2023 Oct 18. PMID: 37863270.



Yang J, et al. High Soluble Fiber Promotes Colorectal Tumorigenesis Through Modulating Gut Microbiota and Metabolites in Mice. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):323-337.e7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.012. Epub 2023 Oct 18. PMID: 37858797.



Young E, et al. Texture and Color Enhancement Imaging Improves Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2024 Feb;166(2):338-340.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.10.008. Epub 2023 Oct 14. PMID: 37839498.
 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

January 2024

Overbeek KA, et al; Dutch Familial Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance Study work group. Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms in High-Risk Individuals: Incidence, Growth Rate, and Malignancy Risk. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):62-71.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.035. Epub 2023 Apr 7. PMID: 37031711.

Reddy CA, et al. Achalasia is Strongly Associated With Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Other Allergic Disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):34-41.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.013. Epub 2023 Jun 28. PMID: 37391057; PMCID: PMC10753026.

Thiruvengadam NR, et al. The Clinical Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Surveillance of Incidentally Detected Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: A Microsimulation Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan;22(1):51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.028. Epub 2023 Jun 9. Erratum in: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Jan 19;: PMID: 37302442.

February 2024

Goodoory VC, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Efficacy of Mesalamine in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;22(2):243-251.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.02.014. Epub 2023 Feb 27. PMID: 36858143.

Brenner DM, et al. Development and Current State of Digital Therapeutics for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 Feb;22(2):222-234. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Sep 22. PMID: 37743035.
 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

January 2024

Ramirez PR, et al. Gaps and Improvement Opportunities in Post-Colonoscopy Communication. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;26(1):90-92. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.001. Epub 2023 Oct 22.

Gonzaga ER, et al. Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (G-POEM) for the Management of Gastroparesis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan; 26(1): 46-55. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.09.002. Epub 2023 Oct 13.



Wang D, et al. Sphincterotomy vs Sham Procedure for Pain Relief in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;26(1): 30-37. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.003. Epub 2023 Nov 8.
 

Gastro Hep Advances

January 2024

Adeniran E, et al. Intense and Sustained Alcohol Consumption Associated With Acute Pancreatitis Warrants Early Intervention. Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan;3(1):61-63. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Sep 2.

Alkhouri N, et al. A Novel Prescription Digital Therapeutic Option for the Treatment of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease. Gastro Hep Advances. 2024 Jan;3(1): 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.08.019. Epub 2023 Oct 1.

Dear colleagues,

Since our prior Perspectives piece on artificial intelligence (AI) in GI and Hepatology in 2022, the field has seen almost exponential growth. Expectations are high that AI will revolutionize our field and significantly improve patient care. But as the global discussion on AI has shown, there are real challenges with adoption, including issues with accuracy, reliability, and privacy.

In this issue, Dr. Nabil M. Mansour and Dr. Thomas R. McCarty explore the current and future impact of AI on gastroenterology, while Dr. Basile Njei and Yazan A. Al Ajlouni assess its role in hepatology. We hope these pieces will help your discussions in incorporating or researching AI for use in your own practices. We welcome your thoughts on this issue on X @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BY THOMAS R. MCCARTY, MD, MPH; NABIL M. MANSOUR, MD

The last few decades have seen an exponential increase and interest in the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and adoption of deep learning algorithms within healthcare and patient care services. The field of gastroenterology and endoscopy has similarly seen a tremendous uptake in acceptance and implementation of AI for a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. The spectrum of AI-based applications includes detection or diagnostic-based as well as therapeutic assistance tools. From the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved device that uses machine learning to assist clinicians in detecting lesions during colonoscopy, to other more innovative machine learning techniques for small bowel, esophageal, and hepatobiliary conditions, AI has dramatically changed the landscape of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Baylor College of Medicine

Ultimately, this data led to FDA approval of the CADe system GI Genius (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) in 2021.⁴ Additional systems have since been FDA approved or 510(k) cleared including Endoscreener (Wision AI, Shanghai, China), SKOUT (Iterative Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts), MAGENTIQ-COLO (MAGENTIQ-EYE LTD, Haifa, Israel), and CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo), all of which have shown increased ADR and/or increased APC and/or reduced adenoma miss rates in randomized trials.⁵

Yet despite the promise of improved quality and subsequent translation to better patient outcomes, there has been a noticeable disconnect between RCT data and more real-world literature.⁶ In a recent study, no improvement was seen in ADR after implementation of a CADe system for colorectal cancer screening — including both higher and lower-ADR performers. Looking at change over time after implementation, CADe had no positive effect in any group over time, divergent from early RCT data. In a more recent multicenter, community-based RCT study, again CADe did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of adenomas detected.⁷ The differences between some of these more recent “real-world” studies vs the majority of data from RCTs raise important questions regarding the potential of bias (due to unblinding) in prospective trials, as well as the role of the human-AI interaction.

Importantly for RCT data, both cohorts in these studies met adequate ADR benchmarks, though it remains unclear whether a truly increased ADR necessitates better patient outcomes — is higher always better? In addition, an important consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is that they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using an outdated version of a CADe system.

Additional unanswered questions regarding an ideal ADR for implementation, preferred patient populations for screening (especially for younger individuals), and the role and adoption of computer-aided polyp diagnosis/characterization (CADx) within the United States remain. Furthermore, questions regarding procedural withdrawal time, impact on sessile serrated lesion detection, cost-effectiveness, and preferred adoption strategies have begun to be explored, though require more data to better define a best practice approach. Ultimately, answers to some of these unknowns may explain the discordant results and help guide future implementation measures.

Innovative applications for alternative gastrointestinal conditions

Given the fervor and excitement, as well as the outcomes associated with AI-based colorectal screening, it is not surprising these techniques have been expanded to other gastrointestinal conditions. At this time, all of these are fledgling, mostly single-center tools, not yet ready for widespread adoption. Nonetheless, these represent a potentially important step forward for difficult-to-manage gastrointestinal diseases.

Machine learning CADe systems have been developed to help identify early Barrett’s neoplasia, depth and invasion of gastric cancer, as well as lesion detection in small bowel video capsule endoscopy.^8-10 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based applications for cholangiocarcinoma and indeterminate stricture diagnosis have also been studied.¹¹ Additional AI-based algorithms have been employed for complex procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to delineate vessels, better define tissue planes for dissection, and visualize landmark structures.^12,13 Furthermore, AI-based scope guidance/manipulation, bleeding detection, landmark identification, and lesion detection have the potential to revolutionize endoscopic training and education. The impact that generative AI can potentially have on clinical practice is also an exciting prospect that warrants further investigation.

Artificial intelligence adoption in clinical practice

Clinical practice with regard to AI and colorectal cancer screening largely mirrors the disconnect in the current literature, with “believers” and “non-believers” as well as innovators and early adopters alongside laggards. In our own academic practices, we continue to struggle with the adoption and standardized implementation of AI-based colorectal cancer CADe systems, despite the RCT data showing positive results. It is likely that AI uptake will follow the technology predictions of Amara’s Law — i.e., individuals tend to overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating long-term effects. In the end, more widespread adoption in community practice and larger scale real-world clinical outcomes studies are likely to determine the true impact of these exciting technologies. For other, less established AI-based tools, more data are currently required.

Conclusions

Ultimately, AI-based algorithms are likely here to stay, with continued improvement and evolution to occur based on provider feedback and patient care needs. Current tools, while not all-encompassing, have the potential to dramatically change the landscape of endoscopic training, diagnostic evaluation, and therapeutic care. It is critically important that relevant stakeholders, both endoscopists and patients, be involved in future applications and design to improve efficiency and quality outcomes overall.

Dr. McCarty is based in the Lynda K. and David M. Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital. Dr. Mansour is based in the section of gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Dr. McCarty reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mansour reports having been a consultant for Iterative Health.

References

1. Repici A, et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062.

2. Repici A, et al. Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: Lessons from two randomised trials. Gut. Apr 2022. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324471.

3. Wallace MB, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2022 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.007.

4. United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). GI Genius FDA Approval [April 9, 2021]. Accessed January 5, 2022. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K211951.pdf.

5. Maas MHJ, et al. A computer-aided polyp detection system in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: An international, multicentre, randomised, tandem trial. Lancet Digit Health. 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00242-X.

6. Ladabaum U, et al. Computer-aided detection of polyps does not improve colonoscopist performance in a pragmatic implementation trial. Gastroenterology. 2023 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.12.004.

7. Wei MT, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection during colonoscopy in the community (AI-SEE): A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002239.

8. de Groof J, et al. The Argos project: The development of a computer-aided detection system to improve detection of Barrett’s neoplasia on white light endoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 May. doi: 10.1177/2050640619837443.

9. Kanesaka T, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for identifying and delineating early gastric cancers in magnifying narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.029.

10. Sahafi A, et al. Edge artificial intelligence wireless video capsule endoscopy. Sci Rep. 2022 Aug. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17502-7.

11. Njei B, et al. Artificial intelligence in endoscopic imaging for detection of malignant biliary strictures and cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review. Ann Gastroenterol. 2023 Mar-Apr. doi: 10.20524/aog.2023.0779.

12. Ebigbo A, et al. Vessel and tissue recognition during third-space endoscopy using a deep learning algorithm. Gut. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326470.

13. Cao J, et al. Intelligent surgical workflow recognition for endoscopic submucosal dissection with real-time animal study. Nat Commun. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42451-8.

The Promise and Challenges of AI in Hepatology

BY BASILE NJEI, MD, MPH, PHD; YAZAN A. AL-AJLOUNI, MPHIL

In the dynamic realm of medicine, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a transformative force, notably within hepatology. The discipline of hepatology, dedicated to liver and related organ diseases, is ripe for AI’s promise to revolutionize diagnostics and treatment, pushing toward a future of precision medicine. Yet, the path to fully realizing AI’s potential in hepatology is laced with data, ethical, and integration challenges.

The application of AI, particularly in histopathology, significantly enhances disease diagnosis and staging in hepatology. AI-driven approaches remedy traditional histopathological challenges, such as interpretative variability, providing more consistent and accurate disease analyses. This is especially evident in conditions like metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), where AI aids in identifying critical gene signatures, thereby refining therapy selection.

Yale School of Medicine

Similarly, deep learning (DL), a branch of AI, has attracted significant interest globally, particularly in image recognition. AI’s incorporation into medical imaging marks a significant advancement, enabling early detection of malignancies like HCC and improving diagnostics in steatotic liver disease through enhanced imaging analyses using convolutional neural networks (CNN). The abundance of imaging data alongside clinical outcomes has catalyzed AI’s integration into radiology, leading to the swift growth of radiomics as a novel domain in medical research.

AI has also been shown to identify nuanced alterations in electrocardiograms (EKGs) associated with liver conditions, potentially detecting the progression of liver diseases at an earlier stage than currently possible. By leveraging complex algorithms and machine learning, AI can analyze EKG patterns with a precision and depth unattainable through traditional manual interpretation. Given that liver diseases, such as cirrhosis or hepatitis, can induce subtle cardiac changes long before other clinical symptoms manifest, early detection through AI-enhanced EKG analysis could lead to timely interventions, potentially halting or reversing disease progression. This approach further enriches our understanding of the intricate interplay between liver function and cardiac health, highlighting the potential for AI to transform not just liver disease diagnostics but also to foster a more integrated approach to patient care.

New York Medical College

Beyond diagnostics, the burgeoning field of generative AI introduces groundbreaking possibilities in treatment planning and patient education, particularly for chronic conditions like cirrhosis. Generative AI produces original content, including text, visuals, and music, by identifying and learning patterns from its training data. When it leverages large language models (LLMs), it entails training on vast collections of textual data and using AI models characterized by many parameters. A notable instance of generative AI employing LLMs is ChatGPT (General Pretrained Transformers). By simulating disease progression and treatment outcomes, generative AI can foster personalized treatment strategies and empower patients with knowledge about their health trajectories. Yet, realizing these potential demands requires overcoming data quality and interpretability challenges, and ensuring AI outputs are accessible and actionable for clinicians and patients.

Despite these advancements, leveraging AI in hepatology is not devoid of hurdles. The development and training of AI models require extensive and diverse datasets, raising concerns about data privacy and ethical use. Addressing these concerns is paramount for successfully integrating AI into clinical hepatology practice, necessitating transparent algorithmic processes and stringent ethical standards. Ethical considerations are central to AI’s integration into hepatology. Algorithmic biases, patient privacy, and the impact of AI-driven decisions underscore the need for cautious AI deployment. Developing transparent, understandable algorithms and establishing ethical guidelines for AI use are critical steps towards ethically leveraging AI in patient care.

In conclusion, AI’s integration into hepatology holds tremendous promise for advancing patient care through enhanced diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient education. Overcoming the associated challenges, including ethical concerns, data diversity, and algorithm interpretability, is crucial. As the hepatology community navigates this technological evolution, a balanced approach that marries technological advancements with ethical stewardship will be key to harnessing AI’s full potential, ensuring it serves the best interests of patients and propels the field of hepatology into the future.

We predict a trajectory of increased use and adoption of AI in hepatology. AI in hepatology is likely to meet the test of pervasiveness, improvement, and innovation. The adoption of AI in routine hepatology diagnosis and management will likely follow Amara’s law and the five stages of the hype cycle. We believe that we are still in the infant stages of adopting AI technology in hepatology, and this phase may last 5 years before there is a peak of inflated expectations. The trough of disillusionment and slopes of enlightenment may only be observed in the next decades.

Dr. Njei is based in the Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. Mr. Al-Ajlouni is a senior medical student at New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, N.Y. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Sources

Taylor-Weiner A, et al. A Machine Learning Approach Enables Quantitative Measurement of Liver Histology and Disease Monitoring in NASH. Hepatology. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1002/hep.31750.

Zeng Q, et al. Artificial intelligence predicts immune and inflammatory gene signatures directly from hepatocellular carcinoma histology. J Hepatol. 2022 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.01.018.

Ahn JC, et al. Development of the AI-Cirrhosis-ECG Score: An Electrocardiogram-Based Deep Learning Model in Cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Mar. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001617.

Nduma BN, et al. The Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2023 Dec 15. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50601.

Dear colleagues,

Since our prior Perspectives piece on artificial intelligence (AI) in GI and Hepatology in 2022, the field has seen almost exponential growth. Expectations are high that AI will revolutionize our field and significantly improve patient care. But as the global discussion on AI has shown, there are real challenges with adoption, including issues with accuracy, reliability, and privacy.

In this issue, Dr. Nabil M. Mansour and Dr. Thomas R. McCarty explore the current and future impact of AI on gastroenterology, while Dr. Basile Njei and Yazan A. Al Ajlouni assess its role in hepatology. We hope these pieces will help your discussions in incorporating or researching AI for use in your own practices. We welcome your thoughts on this issue on X @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BY THOMAS R. MCCARTY, MD, MPH; NABIL M. MANSOUR, MD

The last few decades have seen an exponential increase and interest in the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and adoption of deep learning algorithms within healthcare and patient care services. The field of gastroenterology and endoscopy has similarly seen a tremendous uptake in acceptance and implementation of AI for a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. The spectrum of AI-based applications includes detection or diagnostic-based as well as therapeutic assistance tools. From the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved device that uses machine learning to assist clinicians in detecting lesions during colonoscopy, to other more innovative machine learning techniques for small bowel, esophageal, and hepatobiliary conditions, AI has dramatically changed the landscape of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Baylor College of Medicine

Ultimately, this data led to FDA approval of the CADe system GI Genius (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) in 2021.⁴ Additional systems have since been FDA approved or 510(k) cleared including Endoscreener (Wision AI, Shanghai, China), SKOUT (Iterative Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts), MAGENTIQ-COLO (MAGENTIQ-EYE LTD, Haifa, Israel), and CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo), all of which have shown increased ADR and/or increased APC and/or reduced adenoma miss rates in randomized trials.⁵

Yet despite the promise of improved quality and subsequent translation to better patient outcomes, there has been a noticeable disconnect between RCT data and more real-world literature.⁶ In a recent study, no improvement was seen in ADR after implementation of a CADe system for colorectal cancer screening — including both higher and lower-ADR performers. Looking at change over time after implementation, CADe had no positive effect in any group over time, divergent from early RCT data. In a more recent multicenter, community-based RCT study, again CADe did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of adenomas detected.⁷ The differences between some of these more recent “real-world” studies vs the majority of data from RCTs raise important questions regarding the potential of bias (due to unblinding) in prospective trials, as well as the role of the human-AI interaction.

Importantly for RCT data, both cohorts in these studies met adequate ADR benchmarks, though it remains unclear whether a truly increased ADR necessitates better patient outcomes — is higher always better? In addition, an important consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is that they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using an outdated version of a CADe system.

Additional unanswered questions regarding an ideal ADR for implementation, preferred patient populations for screening (especially for younger individuals), and the role and adoption of computer-aided polyp diagnosis/characterization (CADx) within the United States remain. Furthermore, questions regarding procedural withdrawal time, impact on sessile serrated lesion detection, cost-effectiveness, and preferred adoption strategies have begun to be explored, though require more data to better define a best practice approach. Ultimately, answers to some of these unknowns may explain the discordant results and help guide future implementation measures.

Innovative applications for alternative gastrointestinal conditions

Given the fervor and excitement, as well as the outcomes associated with AI-based colorectal screening, it is not surprising these techniques have been expanded to other gastrointestinal conditions. At this time, all of these are fledgling, mostly single-center tools, not yet ready for widespread adoption. Nonetheless, these represent a potentially important step forward for difficult-to-manage gastrointestinal diseases.

Machine learning CADe systems have been developed to help identify early Barrett’s neoplasia, depth and invasion of gastric cancer, as well as lesion detection in small bowel video capsule endoscopy.^8-10 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based applications for cholangiocarcinoma and indeterminate stricture diagnosis have also been studied.¹¹ Additional AI-based algorithms have been employed for complex procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to delineate vessels, better define tissue planes for dissection, and visualize landmark structures.^12,13 Furthermore, AI-based scope guidance/manipulation, bleeding detection, landmark identification, and lesion detection have the potential to revolutionize endoscopic training and education. The impact that generative AI can potentially have on clinical practice is also an exciting prospect that warrants further investigation.

Artificial intelligence adoption in clinical practice

Clinical practice with regard to AI and colorectal cancer screening largely mirrors the disconnect in the current literature, with “believers” and “non-believers” as well as innovators and early adopters alongside laggards. In our own academic practices, we continue to struggle with the adoption and standardized implementation of AI-based colorectal cancer CADe systems, despite the RCT data showing positive results. It is likely that AI uptake will follow the technology predictions of Amara’s Law — i.e., individuals tend to overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating long-term effects. In the end, more widespread adoption in community practice and larger scale real-world clinical outcomes studies are likely to determine the true impact of these exciting technologies. For other, less established AI-based tools, more data are currently required.

Conclusions

Ultimately, AI-based algorithms are likely here to stay, with continued improvement and evolution to occur based on provider feedback and patient care needs. Current tools, while not all-encompassing, have the potential to dramatically change the landscape of endoscopic training, diagnostic evaluation, and therapeutic care. It is critically important that relevant stakeholders, both endoscopists and patients, be involved in future applications and design to improve efficiency and quality outcomes overall.

Dr. McCarty is based in the Lynda K. and David M. Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital. Dr. Mansour is based in the section of gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Dr. McCarty reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mansour reports having been a consultant for Iterative Health.

References

1. Repici A, et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062.

2. Repici A, et al. Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: Lessons from two randomised trials. Gut. Apr 2022. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324471.

3. Wallace MB, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2022 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.007.

4. United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). GI Genius FDA Approval [April 9, 2021]. Accessed January 5, 2022. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K211951.pdf.

5. Maas MHJ, et al. A computer-aided polyp detection system in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: An international, multicentre, randomised, tandem trial. Lancet Digit Health. 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00242-X.

6. Ladabaum U, et al. Computer-aided detection of polyps does not improve colonoscopist performance in a pragmatic implementation trial. Gastroenterology. 2023 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.12.004.

7. Wei MT, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection during colonoscopy in the community (AI-SEE): A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002239.

8. de Groof J, et al. The Argos project: The development of a computer-aided detection system to improve detection of Barrett’s neoplasia on white light endoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 May. doi: 10.1177/2050640619837443.

9. Kanesaka T, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for identifying and delineating early gastric cancers in magnifying narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.029.

10. Sahafi A, et al. Edge artificial intelligence wireless video capsule endoscopy. Sci Rep. 2022 Aug. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17502-7.

11. Njei B, et al. Artificial intelligence in endoscopic imaging for detection of malignant biliary strictures and cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review. Ann Gastroenterol. 2023 Mar-Apr. doi: 10.20524/aog.2023.0779.

12. Ebigbo A, et al. Vessel and tissue recognition during third-space endoscopy using a deep learning algorithm. Gut. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326470.

13. Cao J, et al. Intelligent surgical workflow recognition for endoscopic submucosal dissection with real-time animal study. Nat Commun. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42451-8.

The Promise and Challenges of AI in Hepatology

BY BASILE NJEI, MD, MPH, PHD; YAZAN A. AL-AJLOUNI, MPHIL

In the dynamic realm of medicine, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a transformative force, notably within hepatology. The discipline of hepatology, dedicated to liver and related organ diseases, is ripe for AI’s promise to revolutionize diagnostics and treatment, pushing toward a future of precision medicine. Yet, the path to fully realizing AI’s potential in hepatology is laced with data, ethical, and integration challenges.

The application of AI, particularly in histopathology, significantly enhances disease diagnosis and staging in hepatology. AI-driven approaches remedy traditional histopathological challenges, such as interpretative variability, providing more consistent and accurate disease analyses. This is especially evident in conditions like metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), where AI aids in identifying critical gene signatures, thereby refining therapy selection.

Yale School of Medicine

Similarly, deep learning (DL), a branch of AI, has attracted significant interest globally, particularly in image recognition. AI’s incorporation into medical imaging marks a significant advancement, enabling early detection of malignancies like HCC and improving diagnostics in steatotic liver disease through enhanced imaging analyses using convolutional neural networks (CNN). The abundance of imaging data alongside clinical outcomes has catalyzed AI’s integration into radiology, leading to the swift growth of radiomics as a novel domain in medical research.

AI has also been shown to identify nuanced alterations in electrocardiograms (EKGs) associated with liver conditions, potentially detecting the progression of liver diseases at an earlier stage than currently possible. By leveraging complex algorithms and machine learning, AI can analyze EKG patterns with a precision and depth unattainable through traditional manual interpretation. Given that liver diseases, such as cirrhosis or hepatitis, can induce subtle cardiac changes long before other clinical symptoms manifest, early detection through AI-enhanced EKG analysis could lead to timely interventions, potentially halting or reversing disease progression. This approach further enriches our understanding of the intricate interplay between liver function and cardiac health, highlighting the potential for AI to transform not just liver disease diagnostics but also to foster a more integrated approach to patient care.

New York Medical College

Beyond diagnostics, the burgeoning field of generative AI introduces groundbreaking possibilities in treatment planning and patient education, particularly for chronic conditions like cirrhosis. Generative AI produces original content, including text, visuals, and music, by identifying and learning patterns from its training data. When it leverages large language models (LLMs), it entails training on vast collections of textual data and using AI models characterized by many parameters. A notable instance of generative AI employing LLMs is ChatGPT (General Pretrained Transformers). By simulating disease progression and treatment outcomes, generative AI can foster personalized treatment strategies and empower patients with knowledge about their health trajectories. Yet, realizing these potential demands requires overcoming data quality and interpretability challenges, and ensuring AI outputs are accessible and actionable for clinicians and patients.

Despite these advancements, leveraging AI in hepatology is not devoid of hurdles. The development and training of AI models require extensive and diverse datasets, raising concerns about data privacy and ethical use. Addressing these concerns is paramount for successfully integrating AI into clinical hepatology practice, necessitating transparent algorithmic processes and stringent ethical standards. Ethical considerations are central to AI’s integration into hepatology. Algorithmic biases, patient privacy, and the impact of AI-driven decisions underscore the need for cautious AI deployment. Developing transparent, understandable algorithms and establishing ethical guidelines for AI use are critical steps towards ethically leveraging AI in patient care.

In conclusion, AI’s integration into hepatology holds tremendous promise for advancing patient care through enhanced diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient education. Overcoming the associated challenges, including ethical concerns, data diversity, and algorithm interpretability, is crucial. As the hepatology community navigates this technological evolution, a balanced approach that marries technological advancements with ethical stewardship will be key to harnessing AI’s full potential, ensuring it serves the best interests of patients and propels the field of hepatology into the future.

We predict a trajectory of increased use and adoption of AI in hepatology. AI in hepatology is likely to meet the test of pervasiveness, improvement, and innovation. The adoption of AI in routine hepatology diagnosis and management will likely follow Amara’s law and the five stages of the hype cycle. We believe that we are still in the infant stages of adopting AI technology in hepatology, and this phase may last 5 years before there is a peak of inflated expectations. The trough of disillusionment and slopes of enlightenment may only be observed in the next decades.

Dr. Njei is based in the Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. Mr. Al-Ajlouni is a senior medical student at New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, N.Y. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Sources

Taylor-Weiner A, et al. A Machine Learning Approach Enables Quantitative Measurement of Liver Histology and Disease Monitoring in NASH. Hepatology. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1002/hep.31750.

Zeng Q, et al. Artificial intelligence predicts immune and inflammatory gene signatures directly from hepatocellular carcinoma histology. J Hepatol. 2022 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.01.018.

Ahn JC, et al. Development of the AI-Cirrhosis-ECG Score: An Electrocardiogram-Based Deep Learning Model in Cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Mar. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001617.

Nduma BN, et al. The Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2023 Dec 15. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50601.

Dear colleagues,

Since our prior Perspectives piece on artificial intelligence (AI) in GI and Hepatology in 2022, the field has seen almost exponential growth. Expectations are high that AI will revolutionize our field and significantly improve patient care. But as the global discussion on AI has shown, there are real challenges with adoption, including issues with accuracy, reliability, and privacy.

In this issue, Dr. Nabil M. Mansour and Dr. Thomas R. McCarty explore the current and future impact of AI on gastroenterology, while Dr. Basile Njei and Yazan A. Al Ajlouni assess its role in hepatology. We hope these pieces will help your discussions in incorporating or researching AI for use in your own practices. We welcome your thoughts on this issue on X @AGA_GIHN.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BY THOMAS R. MCCARTY, MD, MPH; NABIL M. MANSOUR, MD

The last few decades have seen an exponential increase and interest in the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and adoption of deep learning algorithms within healthcare and patient care services. The field of gastroenterology and endoscopy has similarly seen a tremendous uptake in acceptance and implementation of AI for a variety of gastrointestinal conditions. The spectrum of AI-based applications includes detection or diagnostic-based as well as therapeutic assistance tools. From the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved device that uses machine learning to assist clinicians in detecting lesions during colonoscopy, to other more innovative machine learning techniques for small bowel, esophageal, and hepatobiliary conditions, AI has dramatically changed the landscape of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Baylor College of Medicine

Ultimately, this data led to FDA approval of the CADe system GI Genius (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) in 2021.⁴ Additional systems have since been FDA approved or 510(k) cleared including Endoscreener (Wision AI, Shanghai, China), SKOUT (Iterative Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts), MAGENTIQ-COLO (MAGENTIQ-EYE LTD, Haifa, Israel), and CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo), all of which have shown increased ADR and/or increased APC and/or reduced adenoma miss rates in randomized trials.⁵

Yet despite the promise of improved quality and subsequent translation to better patient outcomes, there has been a noticeable disconnect between RCT data and more real-world literature.⁶ In a recent study, no improvement was seen in ADR after implementation of a CADe system for colorectal cancer screening — including both higher and lower-ADR performers. Looking at change over time after implementation, CADe had no positive effect in any group over time, divergent from early RCT data. In a more recent multicenter, community-based RCT study, again CADe did not result in a statistically significant difference in the number of adenomas detected.⁷ The differences between some of these more recent “real-world” studies vs the majority of data from RCTs raise important questions regarding the potential of bias (due to unblinding) in prospective trials, as well as the role of the human-AI interaction.

Importantly for RCT data, both cohorts in these studies met adequate ADR benchmarks, though it remains unclear whether a truly increased ADR necessitates better patient outcomes — is higher always better? In addition, an important consideration with evaluating any AI/CADe system is that they often undergo frequent updates, each promising improved accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. This is an interesting dilemma and raises questions about the enduring relevance of studies conducted using an outdated version of a CADe system.

Additional unanswered questions regarding an ideal ADR for implementation, preferred patient populations for screening (especially for younger individuals), and the role and adoption of computer-aided polyp diagnosis/characterization (CADx) within the United States remain. Furthermore, questions regarding procedural withdrawal time, impact on sessile serrated lesion detection, cost-effectiveness, and preferred adoption strategies have begun to be explored, though require more data to better define a best practice approach. Ultimately, answers to some of these unknowns may explain the discordant results and help guide future implementation measures.

Innovative applications for alternative gastrointestinal conditions

Given the fervor and excitement, as well as the outcomes associated with AI-based colorectal screening, it is not surprising these techniques have been expanded to other gastrointestinal conditions. At this time, all of these are fledgling, mostly single-center tools, not yet ready for widespread adoption. Nonetheless, these represent a potentially important step forward for difficult-to-manage gastrointestinal diseases.

Machine learning CADe systems have been developed to help identify early Barrett’s neoplasia, depth and invasion of gastric cancer, as well as lesion detection in small bowel video capsule endoscopy.^8-10 Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based applications for cholangiocarcinoma and indeterminate stricture diagnosis have also been studied.¹¹ Additional AI-based algorithms have been employed for complex procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) to delineate vessels, better define tissue planes for dissection, and visualize landmark structures.^12,13 Furthermore, AI-based scope guidance/manipulation, bleeding detection, landmark identification, and lesion detection have the potential to revolutionize endoscopic training and education. The impact that generative AI can potentially have on clinical practice is also an exciting prospect that warrants further investigation.

Artificial intelligence adoption in clinical practice

Clinical practice with regard to AI and colorectal cancer screening largely mirrors the disconnect in the current literature, with “believers” and “non-believers” as well as innovators and early adopters alongside laggards. In our own academic practices, we continue to struggle with the adoption and standardized implementation of AI-based colorectal cancer CADe systems, despite the RCT data showing positive results. It is likely that AI uptake will follow the technology predictions of Amara’s Law — i.e., individuals tend to overestimate the short-term impact of new technologies while underestimating long-term effects. In the end, more widespread adoption in community practice and larger scale real-world clinical outcomes studies are likely to determine the true impact of these exciting technologies. For other, less established AI-based tools, more data are currently required.

Conclusions

Ultimately, AI-based algorithms are likely here to stay, with continued improvement and evolution to occur based on provider feedback and patient care needs. Current tools, while not all-encompassing, have the potential to dramatically change the landscape of endoscopic training, diagnostic evaluation, and therapeutic care. It is critically important that relevant stakeholders, both endoscopists and patients, be involved in future applications and design to improve efficiency and quality outcomes overall.

Dr. McCarty is based in the Lynda K. and David M. Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital. Dr. Mansour is based in the section of gastroenterology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Dr. McCarty reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mansour reports having been a consultant for Iterative Health.

References

1. Repici A, et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062.

2. Repici A, et al. Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: Lessons from two randomised trials. Gut. Apr 2022. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324471.

3. Wallace MB, et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2022 Jul. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.007.

4. United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). GI Genius FDA Approval [April 9, 2021]. Accessed January 5, 2022. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf21/K211951.pdf.

5. Maas MHJ, et al. A computer-aided polyp detection system in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: An international, multicentre, randomised, tandem trial. Lancet Digit Health. 2024 Mar. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(23)00242-X.

6. Ladabaum U, et al. Computer-aided detection of polyps does not improve colonoscopist performance in a pragmatic implementation trial. Gastroenterology. 2023 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.12.004.

7. Wei MT, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided detection during colonoscopy in the community (AI-SEE): A multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002239.

8. de Groof J, et al. The Argos project: The development of a computer-aided detection system to improve detection of Barrett’s neoplasia on white light endoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 May. doi: 10.1177/2050640619837443.

9. Kanesaka T, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis for identifying and delineating early gastric cancers in magnifying narrow-band imaging. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.029.

10. Sahafi A, et al. Edge artificial intelligence wireless video capsule endoscopy. Sci Rep. 2022 Aug. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17502-7.

11. Njei B, et al. Artificial intelligence in endoscopic imaging for detection of malignant biliary strictures and cholangiocarcinoma: A systematic review. Ann Gastroenterol. 2023 Mar-Apr. doi: 10.20524/aog.2023.0779.

12. Ebigbo A, et al. Vessel and tissue recognition during third-space endoscopy using a deep learning algorithm. Gut. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326470.

13. Cao J, et al. Intelligent surgical workflow recognition for endoscopic submucosal dissection with real-time animal study. Nat Commun. 2023 Oct. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42451-8.

The Promise and Challenges of AI in Hepatology

BY BASILE NJEI, MD, MPH, PHD; YAZAN A. AL-AJLOUNI, MPHIL

In the dynamic realm of medicine, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a transformative force, notably within hepatology. The discipline of hepatology, dedicated to liver and related organ diseases, is ripe for AI’s promise to revolutionize diagnostics and treatment, pushing toward a future of precision medicine. Yet, the path to fully realizing AI’s potential in hepatology is laced with data, ethical, and integration challenges.

The application of AI, particularly in histopathology, significantly enhances disease diagnosis and staging in hepatology. AI-driven approaches remedy traditional histopathological challenges, such as interpretative variability, providing more consistent and accurate disease analyses. This is especially evident in conditions like metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), where AI aids in identifying critical gene signatures, thereby refining therapy selection.

Yale School of Medicine

Similarly, deep learning (DL), a branch of AI, has attracted significant interest globally, particularly in image recognition. AI’s incorporation into medical imaging marks a significant advancement, enabling early detection of malignancies like HCC and improving diagnostics in steatotic liver disease through enhanced imaging analyses using convolutional neural networks (CNN). The abundance of imaging data alongside clinical outcomes has catalyzed AI’s integration into radiology, leading to the swift growth of radiomics as a novel domain in medical research.

AI has also been shown to identify nuanced alterations in electrocardiograms (EKGs) associated with liver conditions, potentially detecting the progression of liver diseases at an earlier stage than currently possible. By leveraging complex algorithms and machine learning, AI can analyze EKG patterns with a precision and depth unattainable through traditional manual interpretation. Given that liver diseases, such as cirrhosis or hepatitis, can induce subtle cardiac changes long before other clinical symptoms manifest, early detection through AI-enhanced EKG analysis could lead to timely interventions, potentially halting or reversing disease progression. This approach further enriches our understanding of the intricate interplay between liver function and cardiac health, highlighting the potential for AI to transform not just liver disease diagnostics but also to foster a more integrated approach to patient care.

New York Medical College

Beyond diagnostics, the burgeoning field of generative AI introduces groundbreaking possibilities in treatment planning and patient education, particularly for chronic conditions like cirrhosis. Generative AI produces original content, including text, visuals, and music, by identifying and learning patterns from its training data. When it leverages large language models (LLMs), it entails training on vast collections of textual data and using AI models characterized by many parameters. A notable instance of generative AI employing LLMs is ChatGPT (General Pretrained Transformers). By simulating disease progression and treatment outcomes, generative AI can foster personalized treatment strategies and empower patients with knowledge about their health trajectories. Yet, realizing these potential demands requires overcoming data quality and interpretability challenges, and ensuring AI outputs are accessible and actionable for clinicians and patients.

Despite these advancements, leveraging AI in hepatology is not devoid of hurdles. The development and training of AI models require extensive and diverse datasets, raising concerns about data privacy and ethical use. Addressing these concerns is paramount for successfully integrating AI into clinical hepatology practice, necessitating transparent algorithmic processes and stringent ethical standards. Ethical considerations are central to AI’s integration into hepatology. Algorithmic biases, patient privacy, and the impact of AI-driven decisions underscore the need for cautious AI deployment. Developing transparent, understandable algorithms and establishing ethical guidelines for AI use are critical steps towards ethically leveraging AI in patient care.

In conclusion, AI’s integration into hepatology holds tremendous promise for advancing patient care through enhanced diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient education. Overcoming the associated challenges, including ethical concerns, data diversity, and algorithm interpretability, is crucial. As the hepatology community navigates this technological evolution, a balanced approach that marries technological advancements with ethical stewardship will be key to harnessing AI’s full potential, ensuring it serves the best interests of patients and propels the field of hepatology into the future.

We predict a trajectory of increased use and adoption of AI in hepatology. AI in hepatology is likely to meet the test of pervasiveness, improvement, and innovation. The adoption of AI in routine hepatology diagnosis and management will likely follow Amara’s law and the five stages of the hype cycle. We believe that we are still in the infant stages of adopting AI technology in hepatology, and this phase may last 5 years before there is a peak of inflated expectations. The trough of disillusionment and slopes of enlightenment may only be observed in the next decades.

Dr. Njei is based in the Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. Mr. Al-Ajlouni is a senior medical student at New York Medical College School of Medicine, Valhalla, N.Y. They have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Sources

Taylor-Weiner A, et al. A Machine Learning Approach Enables Quantitative Measurement of Liver Histology and Disease Monitoring in NASH. Hepatology. 2021 Jul. doi: 10.1002/hep.31750.

Zeng Q, et al. Artificial intelligence predicts immune and inflammatory gene signatures directly from hepatocellular carcinoma histology. J Hepatol. 2022 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.01.018.

Ahn JC, et al. Development of the AI-Cirrhosis-ECG Score: An Electrocardiogram-Based Deep Learning Model in Cirrhosis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Mar. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001617.

Nduma BN, et al. The Application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2023 Dec 15. doi: 10.7759/cureus.50601.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
• They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.

• In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).

• Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
• They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.

• In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).

• Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) co-occurring with HIV infection does not appear to increase the risk for cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with MASLD alone. However, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) is significantly increased among patients with MASLD and HIV, a large study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• MASLD is highly prevalent in people living with HIV, but the impact of HIV on liver and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in people with MASLD remains unclear.
• To investigate, researchers created a propensity score-matched cohort of veterans with noncirrhotic MASLD, with and without HIV (920 patients in each group).
• They evaluated the incidence of cirrhosis, HCC, and MACE, as well as overall survival, among the two groups. They also assessed these outcomes in MASLD patients with HIV on the basis of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy (ART).

TAKEAWAY:

• During a median follow-up of 10.4 years in the MASLD with HIV group and 11.8 years in the MASLD-only group, the overall incidence of cirrhosis and HCC was similar in MASLD with vs without HIV (cirrhosis: 0.97 vs 1.06 per 100 person-years, P = .54; HCC: 0.26 vs 0.17 per 100,000 person-years, P = .23), regardless of ART use.

• In contrast, the incidence of MACE was significantly higher in MASLD with vs without HIV (5.18 vs 4.48 per 100 person-years, P = .03). The incidence also was higher in patients with MASLD and HIV who were not on ART compared with those on ART (5.83 vs 4.7 per 100 person-years, P = .07).

• Compared with MASLD without HIV, the overall 5-year survival was significantly lower in MASLD with HIV (91.3% vs 85.7%). In MASLD with HIV, receipt of ART was associated with a significantly higher 5-year survival than no ART (87.4% vs 81.6%).

IN PRACTICE:

“Ensuring timely and appropriate initiation of HIV treatment is critical in patients with MASLD who have concurrent HIV infection, as well as optimizing metabolic comorbidities that may also contribute to increased risks of CVD and increased mortality,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Robert J. Wong, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study cohort consisted predominantly of older men, which may limit generalizability to women and younger populations. Metabolic comorbidities are more common in veterans compared with the general population, potentially affecting the generalizability of the CVD risk findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated research grant from Theratechnologies. Wong has received funding for his institution from Gilead Sciences, Exact Sciences, and Durect Corporation and has served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some hepatitis D virus (HDV)-infected patients may require longer treatment with bulevirtide than others, but even “nonresponders” according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria may achieve reduced viremia with ALT normalization, based on real-world experience.

These findings suggest that longer follow-up is needed to determine the optimal treatment duration for bulevirtide monotherapy, reported lead author Alexander Killer, MD, of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

Heinrich Heine University

Bulevirtide was conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and is on track for full marketing approval in Europe, but it remains unavailable in the United States, where Gilead, the manufacturer, has faced regulatory hurdles.

In the MYR202 and 301 clinical trials, bulevirtide significantly reduced HDV-RNA levels in 54% of patients after 24 weeks, and reduced viremia while normalizing ALT in 48% of patients after 48 weeks.

“Given its standalone status and good treatment tolerance even in patients with compensated cirrhosis, this represents a step change in the treatment of HDV-coinfected individuals,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.

Yet dynamics of response and clinical predictors of treatment outcome remain unclear, prompting Dr. Killer and colleagues to conduct the present retrospective study. The dataset included 15 patients who received bulevirtide for at least 1 year at a single center in Germany.

The analysis focused on monthly changes in biochemical and virologic parameters. The investigators also screened for clinical factors that might predict responses to therapy.

Treatment response rate and safety profile aligned with data from clinical trials, suggesting that bulevirtide is safe and effective in a real-world setting.

Patients typically achieved ALT normalization 2-6 months into therapy, followed by virologic response at least 6 months after starting treatment, with one-third of patients requiring at least 1 year to achieve HDV-RNA negativity.

“Of note, normalization of ALT under bulevirtide treatment occurs earlier than the decline of HDV-RNA levels, which contrasts with the response seen to nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in hepatitis B,” the investigators wrote. They suggested that this may be due to bulevirtide’s distinct mechanism of action.

Severe hepatitis was associated with lower response rates in the first year. Possible predictors of delayed response included low body mass index and high alpha-fetoprotein.

Of note, two patients had ALT normalization without virologic response.

“It is unclear whether these patients actually have worse outcomes in terms of overall success than patients with a combined response, especially since these patients experienced a decline of more than 1 log,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote, noting that a 1 log reduction is considered an intermediate virologic response, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) studies have shown that severe liver events are prevented by early ALT normalization. “Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to categorize patients with biochemical responses as ‘treatment nonresponders’ [according to FDA criteria].”

The investigators called for longer observational studies to determine the optimal duration of bulevirtide monotherapy.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, GSK, AbbVie, and others.

Some hepatitis D virus (HDV)-infected patients may require longer treatment with bulevirtide than others, but even “nonresponders” according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria may achieve reduced viremia with ALT normalization, based on real-world experience.

These findings suggest that longer follow-up is needed to determine the optimal treatment duration for bulevirtide monotherapy, reported lead author Alexander Killer, MD, of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

Heinrich Heine University

Bulevirtide was conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and is on track for full marketing approval in Europe, but it remains unavailable in the United States, where Gilead, the manufacturer, has faced regulatory hurdles.

In the MYR202 and 301 clinical trials, bulevirtide significantly reduced HDV-RNA levels in 54% of patients after 24 weeks, and reduced viremia while normalizing ALT in 48% of patients after 48 weeks.

“Given its standalone status and good treatment tolerance even in patients with compensated cirrhosis, this represents a step change in the treatment of HDV-coinfected individuals,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.

Yet dynamics of response and clinical predictors of treatment outcome remain unclear, prompting Dr. Killer and colleagues to conduct the present retrospective study. The dataset included 15 patients who received bulevirtide for at least 1 year at a single center in Germany.

The analysis focused on monthly changes in biochemical and virologic parameters. The investigators also screened for clinical factors that might predict responses to therapy.

Treatment response rate and safety profile aligned with data from clinical trials, suggesting that bulevirtide is safe and effective in a real-world setting.

Patients typically achieved ALT normalization 2-6 months into therapy, followed by virologic response at least 6 months after starting treatment, with one-third of patients requiring at least 1 year to achieve HDV-RNA negativity.

“Of note, normalization of ALT under bulevirtide treatment occurs earlier than the decline of HDV-RNA levels, which contrasts with the response seen to nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in hepatitis B,” the investigators wrote. They suggested that this may be due to bulevirtide’s distinct mechanism of action.

Severe hepatitis was associated with lower response rates in the first year. Possible predictors of delayed response included low body mass index and high alpha-fetoprotein.

Of note, two patients had ALT normalization without virologic response.

“It is unclear whether these patients actually have worse outcomes in terms of overall success than patients with a combined response, especially since these patients experienced a decline of more than 1 log,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote, noting that a 1 log reduction is considered an intermediate virologic response, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) studies have shown that severe liver events are prevented by early ALT normalization. “Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to categorize patients with biochemical responses as ‘treatment nonresponders’ [according to FDA criteria].”

The investigators called for longer observational studies to determine the optimal duration of bulevirtide monotherapy.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, GSK, AbbVie, and others.

Some hepatitis D virus (HDV)-infected patients may require longer treatment with bulevirtide than others, but even “nonresponders” according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria may achieve reduced viremia with ALT normalization, based on real-world experience.

These findings suggest that longer follow-up is needed to determine the optimal treatment duration for bulevirtide monotherapy, reported lead author Alexander Killer, MD, of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

Heinrich Heine University

Bulevirtide was conditionally approved by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and is on track for full marketing approval in Europe, but it remains unavailable in the United States, where Gilead, the manufacturer, has faced regulatory hurdles.

In the MYR202 and 301 clinical trials, bulevirtide significantly reduced HDV-RNA levels in 54% of patients after 24 weeks, and reduced viremia while normalizing ALT in 48% of patients after 48 weeks.

“Given its standalone status and good treatment tolerance even in patients with compensated cirrhosis, this represents a step change in the treatment of HDV-coinfected individuals,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.

Yet dynamics of response and clinical predictors of treatment outcome remain unclear, prompting Dr. Killer and colleagues to conduct the present retrospective study. The dataset included 15 patients who received bulevirtide for at least 1 year at a single center in Germany.

The analysis focused on monthly changes in biochemical and virologic parameters. The investigators also screened for clinical factors that might predict responses to therapy.

Treatment response rate and safety profile aligned with data from clinical trials, suggesting that bulevirtide is safe and effective in a real-world setting.

Patients typically achieved ALT normalization 2-6 months into therapy, followed by virologic response at least 6 months after starting treatment, with one-third of patients requiring at least 1 year to achieve HDV-RNA negativity.

“Of note, normalization of ALT under bulevirtide treatment occurs earlier than the decline of HDV-RNA levels, which contrasts with the response seen to nucleos(t)ide analog treatment in hepatitis B,” the investigators wrote. They suggested that this may be due to bulevirtide’s distinct mechanism of action.

Severe hepatitis was associated with lower response rates in the first year. Possible predictors of delayed response included low body mass index and high alpha-fetoprotein.

Of note, two patients had ALT normalization without virologic response.

“It is unclear whether these patients actually have worse outcomes in terms of overall success than patients with a combined response, especially since these patients experienced a decline of more than 1 log,” Dr. Killer and colleagues wrote, noting that a 1 log reduction is considered an intermediate virologic response, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) studies have shown that severe liver events are prevented by early ALT normalization. “Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to categorize patients with biochemical responses as ‘treatment nonresponders’ [according to FDA criteria].”

The investigators called for longer observational studies to determine the optimal duration of bulevirtide monotherapy.

This study was funded by the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Research Foundation. The investigators disclosed relationships with Novartis, GSK, AbbVie, and others.