Carolyn Crist

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 .

The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) may lead to an increased risk for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic procedures, according to a new large population-based study.

In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommended holding GLP-1 RAs before an endoscopic or surgical procedure to reduce the risk for complications associated with anesthesia and delayed stomach emptying.

In response, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures.

“It is known that GLP-1 RAs significantly reduce the motility of the stomach and small bowel. As more and more patients are being started on GLP-1 RAs at higher doses and longer half-life, the question became whether the current recommended fasting durations are enough to reasonably assume the stomach is empty prior to procedures that require sedation,” said senior author Ali Rezaie, MD, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We wanted to see if these medications in fact increased the chance of aspiration before the ASA suggestion went into effect,” he said. “However, this is not an easy task, as aspiration is a rare event and a large sample size is needed to confidently answer that question. That is why we evaluated nearly 1 million cases.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing GLP-1 RA Use

Dr. Rezaie and colleagues conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of the TriNetX dataset, which includes 114 million deidentified individual health records from 80 healthcare organizations. The research team analyzed nearly 1 million records for adult patients between ages 21 and 70 who underwent upper and lower endoscopies between January 2018 and December 2020.

Rezaie_Ali_CA_web.jpg

The researchers defined GLP-1 RA users as those who had the medication for more than 6 months and two or more refills within 6 months before the procedure. They adjusted for 59 factors that could affect gut motility or aspiration risks, such as obesity, numerous chronic diseases, and dozens of medications. The primary outcome was aspiration pneumonia within a month after the procedure.

Among 963,184 patients who underwent endoscopy, 46,935 (4.9%) were considered GLP-1 RA users. Among those, 20,099 GLP-1 RA users met the inclusion criteria and had their results compared with non-GLP-1 RA users.

After propensity score matching for the 59 potential confounders, GLP-1 RA use had a higher incidence rate of aspiration pneumonia (0.83% vs 0.63%) and was associated with a significantly higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33.

An even higher risk was seen among patients with propofol-assisted endoscopies (HR, 1.49) but not among those without propofol (HR, 1.31).

In a subgroup analysis based on endoscopy type, an elevated risk was observed among patients who underwent upper endoscopy (HR, 1.82) and combined upper and lower endoscopy (HR, 2.26) but not lower endoscopy (HR, 0.56).

“The results were not necessarily surprising given the mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs. However, for the first time, this was shown with a clinically relevant outcome, such as aspiration pneumonia,” Dr. Rezaie said. “Aspiration during sedation can have devastating consequences, and the 0.2% difference in risk of aspiration can have a significant effect on healthcare as well.”

More than 20 million endoscopies are performed across the United States annually. Based on the assumption that about 3% of those patients are taking GLP-1 RAs, about 1200 aspiration cases per year can be prevented by raising awareness, he said.
 

Considering Next Steps

The varying risk profiles observed with separate sedation and endoscopy types point to a need for more tailored guidance in managing GLP-1 RA use before a procedure, the study authors wrote.

Although holding the medications before endoscopy may disrupt diabetes management, the potential increased risk for aspiration could justify a change in practice, particularly for upper endoscopy and propofol-associated procedures, they added.

At the same time, additional studies are needed to understand the optimal drug withholding windows before endoscopies and other procedures, they concluded.

“We will need more data on what is the optimal duration of holding GLP-1 RAs,” Dr. Rezaie said. “But given our data and current ASA guidance, stopping these medications prior to elective procedures is the safe thing to do.”

For now, AGA guidance remains the same as offered in the November 2023 update, suggesting an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a “blanket statement” on how to manage all patients taking these medications.

“Overall, I believe that this study is important, but we require more high-level data to inform clinical decision-making regarding patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy,” said Andrew Y. Wang, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of interventional endoscopy at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Dr. Wang, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored the AGA rapid clinical practice update. He and colleagues advised continuing with a procedure as planned for patients on GLP-1 RAs who followed standard preprocedure fasting instructions and didn’t have nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, or abdominal distention.

Wang_Andrew_VA_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) may lead to an increased risk for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic procedures, according to a new large population-based study.

In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommended holding GLP-1 RAs before an endoscopic or surgical procedure to reduce the risk for complications associated with anesthesia and delayed stomach emptying.

In response, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures.

“It is known that GLP-1 RAs significantly reduce the motility of the stomach and small bowel. As more and more patients are being started on GLP-1 RAs at higher doses and longer half-life, the question became whether the current recommended fasting durations are enough to reasonably assume the stomach is empty prior to procedures that require sedation,” said senior author Ali Rezaie, MD, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We wanted to see if these medications in fact increased the chance of aspiration before the ASA suggestion went into effect,” he said. “However, this is not an easy task, as aspiration is a rare event and a large sample size is needed to confidently answer that question. That is why we evaluated nearly 1 million cases.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing GLP-1 RA Use

Dr. Rezaie and colleagues conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of the TriNetX dataset, which includes 114 million deidentified individual health records from 80 healthcare organizations. The research team analyzed nearly 1 million records for adult patients between ages 21 and 70 who underwent upper and lower endoscopies between January 2018 and December 2020.

Rezaie_Ali_CA_web.jpg

The researchers defined GLP-1 RA users as those who had the medication for more than 6 months and two or more refills within 6 months before the procedure. They adjusted for 59 factors that could affect gut motility or aspiration risks, such as obesity, numerous chronic diseases, and dozens of medications. The primary outcome was aspiration pneumonia within a month after the procedure.

Among 963,184 patients who underwent endoscopy, 46,935 (4.9%) were considered GLP-1 RA users. Among those, 20,099 GLP-1 RA users met the inclusion criteria and had their results compared with non-GLP-1 RA users.

After propensity score matching for the 59 potential confounders, GLP-1 RA use had a higher incidence rate of aspiration pneumonia (0.83% vs 0.63%) and was associated with a significantly higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33.

An even higher risk was seen among patients with propofol-assisted endoscopies (HR, 1.49) but not among those without propofol (HR, 1.31).

In a subgroup analysis based on endoscopy type, an elevated risk was observed among patients who underwent upper endoscopy (HR, 1.82) and combined upper and lower endoscopy (HR, 2.26) but not lower endoscopy (HR, 0.56).

“The results were not necessarily surprising given the mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs. However, for the first time, this was shown with a clinically relevant outcome, such as aspiration pneumonia,” Dr. Rezaie said. “Aspiration during sedation can have devastating consequences, and the 0.2% difference in risk of aspiration can have a significant effect on healthcare as well.”

More than 20 million endoscopies are performed across the United States annually. Based on the assumption that about 3% of those patients are taking GLP-1 RAs, about 1200 aspiration cases per year can be prevented by raising awareness, he said.
 

Considering Next Steps

The varying risk profiles observed with separate sedation and endoscopy types point to a need for more tailored guidance in managing GLP-1 RA use before a procedure, the study authors wrote.

Although holding the medications before endoscopy may disrupt diabetes management, the potential increased risk for aspiration could justify a change in practice, particularly for upper endoscopy and propofol-associated procedures, they added.

At the same time, additional studies are needed to understand the optimal drug withholding windows before endoscopies and other procedures, they concluded.

“We will need more data on what is the optimal duration of holding GLP-1 RAs,” Dr. Rezaie said. “But given our data and current ASA guidance, stopping these medications prior to elective procedures is the safe thing to do.”

For now, AGA guidance remains the same as offered in the November 2023 update, suggesting an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a “blanket statement” on how to manage all patients taking these medications.

“Overall, I believe that this study is important, but we require more high-level data to inform clinical decision-making regarding patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy,” said Andrew Y. Wang, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of interventional endoscopy at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Dr. Wang, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored the AGA rapid clinical practice update. He and colleagues advised continuing with a procedure as planned for patients on GLP-1 RAs who followed standard preprocedure fasting instructions and didn’t have nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, or abdominal distention.

Wang_Andrew_VA_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) may lead to an increased risk for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic procedures, according to a new large population-based study.

In June 2023, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommended holding GLP-1 RAs before an endoscopic or surgical procedure to reduce the risk for complications associated with anesthesia and delayed stomach emptying.

In response, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures.

“It is known that GLP-1 RAs significantly reduce the motility of the stomach and small bowel. As more and more patients are being started on GLP-1 RAs at higher doses and longer half-life, the question became whether the current recommended fasting durations are enough to reasonably assume the stomach is empty prior to procedures that require sedation,” said senior author Ali Rezaie, MD, medical director of the GI Motility Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We wanted to see if these medications in fact increased the chance of aspiration before the ASA suggestion went into effect,” he said. “However, this is not an easy task, as aspiration is a rare event and a large sample size is needed to confidently answer that question. That is why we evaluated nearly 1 million cases.”

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Analyzing GLP-1 RA Use

Dr. Rezaie and colleagues conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of the TriNetX dataset, which includes 114 million deidentified individual health records from 80 healthcare organizations. The research team analyzed nearly 1 million records for adult patients between ages 21 and 70 who underwent upper and lower endoscopies between January 2018 and December 2020.

Rezaie_Ali_CA_web.jpg

The researchers defined GLP-1 RA users as those who had the medication for more than 6 months and two or more refills within 6 months before the procedure. They adjusted for 59 factors that could affect gut motility or aspiration risks, such as obesity, numerous chronic diseases, and dozens of medications. The primary outcome was aspiration pneumonia within a month after the procedure.

Among 963,184 patients who underwent endoscopy, 46,935 (4.9%) were considered GLP-1 RA users. Among those, 20,099 GLP-1 RA users met the inclusion criteria and had their results compared with non-GLP-1 RA users.

After propensity score matching for the 59 potential confounders, GLP-1 RA use had a higher incidence rate of aspiration pneumonia (0.83% vs 0.63%) and was associated with a significantly higher risk for aspiration pneumonia, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33.

An even higher risk was seen among patients with propofol-assisted endoscopies (HR, 1.49) but not among those without propofol (HR, 1.31).

In a subgroup analysis based on endoscopy type, an elevated risk was observed among patients who underwent upper endoscopy (HR, 1.82) and combined upper and lower endoscopy (HR, 2.26) but not lower endoscopy (HR, 0.56).

“The results were not necessarily surprising given the mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs. However, for the first time, this was shown with a clinically relevant outcome, such as aspiration pneumonia,” Dr. Rezaie said. “Aspiration during sedation can have devastating consequences, and the 0.2% difference in risk of aspiration can have a significant effect on healthcare as well.”

More than 20 million endoscopies are performed across the United States annually. Based on the assumption that about 3% of those patients are taking GLP-1 RAs, about 1200 aspiration cases per year can be prevented by raising awareness, he said.
 

Considering Next Steps

The varying risk profiles observed with separate sedation and endoscopy types point to a need for more tailored guidance in managing GLP-1 RA use before a procedure, the study authors wrote.

Although holding the medications before endoscopy may disrupt diabetes management, the potential increased risk for aspiration could justify a change in practice, particularly for upper endoscopy and propofol-associated procedures, they added.

At the same time, additional studies are needed to understand the optimal drug withholding windows before endoscopies and other procedures, they concluded.

“We will need more data on what is the optimal duration of holding GLP-1 RAs,” Dr. Rezaie said. “But given our data and current ASA guidance, stopping these medications prior to elective procedures is the safe thing to do.”

For now, AGA guidance remains the same as offered in the November 2023 update, suggesting an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a “blanket statement” on how to manage all patients taking these medications.

“Overall, I believe that this study is important, but we require more high-level data to inform clinical decision-making regarding patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to gastrointestinal endoscopy,” said Andrew Y. Wang, MD, AGAF, chief of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of interventional endoscopy at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Dr. Wang, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored the AGA rapid clinical practice update. He and colleagues advised continuing with a procedure as planned for patients on GLP-1 RAs who followed standard preprocedure fasting instructions and didn’t have nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, or abdominal distention.

Wang_Andrew_VA_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Although the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) with bezlotoxumab was well-tolerated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), there›s no clear benefit to using both vs FMT alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 61 patients with IBD (20 with Crohn’s disease and 41 with ulcerative colitis) who had two or more episodes of CDI.
• All participants received a single colonoscopic FMT from a universal stool bank and were randomly assigned to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion or placebo infusion before or at the time of the FMT.
• Patients were measured for CDI recurrence, defined as presence of diarrhea and positive glutamate dehydrogenase and enzyme immunoassay toxin test results, up to week 8 after treatment.
• Researchers also looked at C difficile decolonization, defined as absence of diarrhea and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results, and changes in IBD disease activity through week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Five participants (8%) had a CDI recurrence, including four who received bezlotoxumab and one who received placebo (13% vs 3%).
• Although participants in the treatment arm had higher odds of CDI recurrence, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• More patients who received bezlotoxumab were decolonized compared to placebo, both at week 1 (82% vs 68%) and week 12 (83% vs 72%), though the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• There weren’t any significant differences in IBD outcomes, although there were higher rates of IBD improvement among those who received bezlotoxumab (56% vs 46%).

IN PRACTICE:

“As bezlotoxumab can be used to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients during their first episode of CDI, it may be more appropriate to use these therapies early and sequentially,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online on March 19 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the sample size and inclusion of PCR-only testing for the qualifying episode.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Several authors reported consultancy fees, research grants, and advisory board member roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Although the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) with bezlotoxumab was well-tolerated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), there›s no clear benefit to using both vs FMT alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 61 patients with IBD (20 with Crohn’s disease and 41 with ulcerative colitis) who had two or more episodes of CDI.
• All participants received a single colonoscopic FMT from a universal stool bank and were randomly assigned to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion or placebo infusion before or at the time of the FMT.
• Patients were measured for CDI recurrence, defined as presence of diarrhea and positive glutamate dehydrogenase and enzyme immunoassay toxin test results, up to week 8 after treatment.
• Researchers also looked at C difficile decolonization, defined as absence of diarrhea and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results, and changes in IBD disease activity through week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Five participants (8%) had a CDI recurrence, including four who received bezlotoxumab and one who received placebo (13% vs 3%).
• Although participants in the treatment arm had higher odds of CDI recurrence, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• More patients who received bezlotoxumab were decolonized compared to placebo, both at week 1 (82% vs 68%) and week 12 (83% vs 72%), though the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• There weren’t any significant differences in IBD outcomes, although there were higher rates of IBD improvement among those who received bezlotoxumab (56% vs 46%).

IN PRACTICE:

“As bezlotoxumab can be used to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients during their first episode of CDI, it may be more appropriate to use these therapies early and sequentially,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online on March 19 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the sample size and inclusion of PCR-only testing for the qualifying episode.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Several authors reported consultancy fees, research grants, and advisory board member roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Although the combination of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) with bezlotoxumab was well-tolerated in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), there›s no clear benefit to using both vs FMT alone.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 61 patients with IBD (20 with Crohn’s disease and 41 with ulcerative colitis) who had two or more episodes of CDI.
• All participants received a single colonoscopic FMT from a universal stool bank and were randomly assigned to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion or placebo infusion before or at the time of the FMT.
• Patients were measured for CDI recurrence, defined as presence of diarrhea and positive glutamate dehydrogenase and enzyme immunoassay toxin test results, up to week 8 after treatment.
• Researchers also looked at C difficile decolonization, defined as absence of diarrhea and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test results, and changes in IBD disease activity through week 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Five participants (8%) had a CDI recurrence, including four who received bezlotoxumab and one who received placebo (13% vs 3%).
• Although participants in the treatment arm had higher odds of CDI recurrence, the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• More patients who received bezlotoxumab were decolonized compared to placebo, both at week 1 (82% vs 68%) and week 12 (83% vs 72%), though the difference wasn’t statistically significant.
• There weren’t any significant differences in IBD outcomes, although there were higher rates of IBD improvement among those who received bezlotoxumab (56% vs 46%).

IN PRACTICE:

“As bezlotoxumab can be used to prevent recurrence in high-risk patients during their first episode of CDI, it may be more appropriate to use these therapies early and sequentially,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online on March 19 in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the sample size and inclusion of PCR-only testing for the qualifying episode.

DISCLOSURES:

The trial was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from Merck Sharpe and Dohme. Several authors reported consultancy fees, research grants, and advisory board member roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Teen pregnancy is associated with a higher risk for premature mortality, both among those who carry the pregnancies to term and those who miscarry, according to a new study.

Among 2.2 million female teenagers in Ontario, Canada, the risk for premature death by age 31 years was 1.5 times higher among those who had one teen pregnancy and 2.1 times higher among those with two or more teen pregnancies.

“No person should die during childhood or early adulthood. Such deaths, unexpected and tragic, are often from preventable causes, including intentional injury,” lead author Joel Ray, MD, an obstetric medicine specialist and epidemiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, told this news organization. 

“Women who experience teen pregnancy appear more vulnerable, often having experienced a history of adverse experiences in childhood, including abuse and economic challenges,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Analyzing Pregnancy Associations

The investigators conducted a population-based cohort study of all girls who were alive at age 12 years from April 1991 to March 2021 in Ontario. They evaluated the risk for all-cause mortality from age 12 years onward in association with the number of teen pregnancies between ages 12 and 19 years and the age at first pregnancy. The investigators adjusted the hazard ratios for year of birth, comorbidities at ages 9-11 years, area-level education, income level, and rural status.

Among more than 2.2 million teens, 163,124 (7.3%) had a pregnancy at a median age of 18 years, including 121,276 (74.3%) who had one pregnancy and 41,848 (25.6%) who had two or more. These teens were more likely to live in the lowest neighborhood income quintile and in an area with a lower rate of high school completion. They also had a higher prevalence of self-harm history between ages 12 and 19 years but not a higher prevalence of physical or mental comorbidities.

Among all teens who had a pregnancy, 60,037 (36.8%) ended in a birth, including 59,485 (99.1%) live births. A further 106,135 (65.1%) ended in induced abortion, and 17,945 (11%) ended in miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.

Overall, there were 6030 premature deaths among those without a teen pregnancy, or 1.9 per 10,000 person-years. There were 701 deaths among those with one teen pregnancy (4.1 per 10,000 person-years) and 345 deaths among those with two or more teen pregnancies (6.1 per 10,000 person-years).

The adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for mortality were 1.51 for those with one pregnancy and 2.14 for those with two or more pregnancies. Compared with no teen pregnancy, the AHRs for premature death were 1.41 if the first teen pregnancy ended in an induced abortion and 2.10 if it ended in a miscarriage or birth.

Comparing those with a teen pregnancy and those without, the AHRs for premature death were 1.25 from noninjury, 2.06 from unintentional injury, and 2.02 from intentional injury. Among patients with teen pregnancy, noninjury-related premature mortality was more common, at 2.0 per 10,000 person-years, than unintentional and intentional injuries, at 1.0 per 10,000 person-years and 0.4 per 10,000 person-years, respectively.

A teen pregnancy before age 16 years entailed the highest associated risk for premature death, with an AHR of 2.00.
 

Next Research Steps

“We were not surprised by our findings, but it was new to us to see that the risk for premature death was higher for women who had an induced abortion in their teen years,” said Dr. Ray. “It was even higher in those whose pregnancy ended in a birth or miscarriage.”

The investigators plan to evaluate whether the future risk for premature death after teen pregnancy differs by the type of induced abortion, such as procedural or pharmaceutical, or by whether the pregnancy ended in a live birth, stillbirth, or miscarriage. Among those with a live birth, the researchers will also analyze the risk for premature death in relation to whether the newborn was taken into custody by child protection services in Canada.

Other factors associated with teen pregnancy and overall mortality, particularly adverse childhood experiences, may point to the reasons for premature mortality and should be studied further, the authors wrote. Structural and systems-related factors should be considered as well.
 

Stigmatization and Isolation 

“Some teens choose to become pregnant, but most teen pregnancies are unintended, which exposes shortcomings in the systems that exist to educate, guide, and support young people,” said Elizabeth Cook, a research scientist at Child Trends in Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Cook, who wasn’t involved with this study, wrote an accompanying editorial in JAMA Network Open. She conducts studies of sexual and reproductive health for Child Trends.

“Teens who become pregnant often experience stigmatization and isolation that can make it more difficult to thrive in adulthood, especially if they lack the necessary support to navigate such a significant decision,” she said. “Fortunately, the systems that youths encounter, such as healthcare, education, and child welfare, are taking on a larger role in prevention efforts than they have in the past.”

These systems are shifting the burden of unintended teen pregnancy from the teens themselves and their behaviors to the health and education systems, Dr. Cook noted, though more work is needed around local policies and lack of access to healthcare facilities. 

“Teen pregnancy may offer an opportunity to intervene in the lives of people at higher risk for premature death, but knowing how best to offer support requires an understanding of the context of their lives,” she said. “As a starting point, we must celebrate and listen to all pregnant young people so they can tell us what they need to live long, fulfilled lives.”

The study was funded by grants from the PSI Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as well as ICES, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Ray and Dr. Cook reported no relevant disclosures. 

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

Teen pregnancy is associated with a higher risk for premature mortality, both among those who carry the pregnancies to term and those who miscarry, according to a new study.

Among 2.2 million female teenagers in Ontario, Canada, the risk for premature death by age 31 years was 1.5 times higher among those who had one teen pregnancy and 2.1 times higher among those with two or more teen pregnancies.

“No person should die during childhood or early adulthood. Such deaths, unexpected and tragic, are often from preventable causes, including intentional injury,” lead author Joel Ray, MD, an obstetric medicine specialist and epidemiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, told this news organization. 

“Women who experience teen pregnancy appear more vulnerable, often having experienced a history of adverse experiences in childhood, including abuse and economic challenges,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Analyzing Pregnancy Associations

The investigators conducted a population-based cohort study of all girls who were alive at age 12 years from April 1991 to March 2021 in Ontario. They evaluated the risk for all-cause mortality from age 12 years onward in association with the number of teen pregnancies between ages 12 and 19 years and the age at first pregnancy. The investigators adjusted the hazard ratios for year of birth, comorbidities at ages 9-11 years, area-level education, income level, and rural status.

Among more than 2.2 million teens, 163,124 (7.3%) had a pregnancy at a median age of 18 years, including 121,276 (74.3%) who had one pregnancy and 41,848 (25.6%) who had two or more. These teens were more likely to live in the lowest neighborhood income quintile and in an area with a lower rate of high school completion. They also had a higher prevalence of self-harm history between ages 12 and 19 years but not a higher prevalence of physical or mental comorbidities.

Among all teens who had a pregnancy, 60,037 (36.8%) ended in a birth, including 59,485 (99.1%) live births. A further 106,135 (65.1%) ended in induced abortion, and 17,945 (11%) ended in miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.

Overall, there were 6030 premature deaths among those without a teen pregnancy, or 1.9 per 10,000 person-years. There were 701 deaths among those with one teen pregnancy (4.1 per 10,000 person-years) and 345 deaths among those with two or more teen pregnancies (6.1 per 10,000 person-years).

The adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for mortality were 1.51 for those with one pregnancy and 2.14 for those with two or more pregnancies. Compared with no teen pregnancy, the AHRs for premature death were 1.41 if the first teen pregnancy ended in an induced abortion and 2.10 if it ended in a miscarriage or birth.

Comparing those with a teen pregnancy and those without, the AHRs for premature death were 1.25 from noninjury, 2.06 from unintentional injury, and 2.02 from intentional injury. Among patients with teen pregnancy, noninjury-related premature mortality was more common, at 2.0 per 10,000 person-years, than unintentional and intentional injuries, at 1.0 per 10,000 person-years and 0.4 per 10,000 person-years, respectively.

A teen pregnancy before age 16 years entailed the highest associated risk for premature death, with an AHR of 2.00.
 

Next Research Steps

“We were not surprised by our findings, but it was new to us to see that the risk for premature death was higher for women who had an induced abortion in their teen years,” said Dr. Ray. “It was even higher in those whose pregnancy ended in a birth or miscarriage.”

The investigators plan to evaluate whether the future risk for premature death after teen pregnancy differs by the type of induced abortion, such as procedural or pharmaceutical, or by whether the pregnancy ended in a live birth, stillbirth, or miscarriage. Among those with a live birth, the researchers will also analyze the risk for premature death in relation to whether the newborn was taken into custody by child protection services in Canada.

Other factors associated with teen pregnancy and overall mortality, particularly adverse childhood experiences, may point to the reasons for premature mortality and should be studied further, the authors wrote. Structural and systems-related factors should be considered as well.
 

Stigmatization and Isolation 

“Some teens choose to become pregnant, but most teen pregnancies are unintended, which exposes shortcomings in the systems that exist to educate, guide, and support young people,” said Elizabeth Cook, a research scientist at Child Trends in Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Cook, who wasn’t involved with this study, wrote an accompanying editorial in JAMA Network Open. She conducts studies of sexual and reproductive health for Child Trends.

“Teens who become pregnant often experience stigmatization and isolation that can make it more difficult to thrive in adulthood, especially if they lack the necessary support to navigate such a significant decision,” she said. “Fortunately, the systems that youths encounter, such as healthcare, education, and child welfare, are taking on a larger role in prevention efforts than they have in the past.”

These systems are shifting the burden of unintended teen pregnancy from the teens themselves and their behaviors to the health and education systems, Dr. Cook noted, though more work is needed around local policies and lack of access to healthcare facilities. 

“Teen pregnancy may offer an opportunity to intervene in the lives of people at higher risk for premature death, but knowing how best to offer support requires an understanding of the context of their lives,” she said. “As a starting point, we must celebrate and listen to all pregnant young people so they can tell us what they need to live long, fulfilled lives.”

The study was funded by grants from the PSI Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as well as ICES, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Ray and Dr. Cook reported no relevant disclosures. 

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

Teen pregnancy is associated with a higher risk for premature mortality, both among those who carry the pregnancies to term and those who miscarry, according to a new study.

Among 2.2 million female teenagers in Ontario, Canada, the risk for premature death by age 31 years was 1.5 times higher among those who had one teen pregnancy and 2.1 times higher among those with two or more teen pregnancies.

“No person should die during childhood or early adulthood. Such deaths, unexpected and tragic, are often from preventable causes, including intentional injury,” lead author Joel Ray, MD, an obstetric medicine specialist and epidemiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, told this news organization. 

“Women who experience teen pregnancy appear more vulnerable, often having experienced a history of adverse experiences in childhood, including abuse and economic challenges,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Analyzing Pregnancy Associations

The investigators conducted a population-based cohort study of all girls who were alive at age 12 years from April 1991 to March 2021 in Ontario. They evaluated the risk for all-cause mortality from age 12 years onward in association with the number of teen pregnancies between ages 12 and 19 years and the age at first pregnancy. The investigators adjusted the hazard ratios for year of birth, comorbidities at ages 9-11 years, area-level education, income level, and rural status.

Among more than 2.2 million teens, 163,124 (7.3%) had a pregnancy at a median age of 18 years, including 121,276 (74.3%) who had one pregnancy and 41,848 (25.6%) who had two or more. These teens were more likely to live in the lowest neighborhood income quintile and in an area with a lower rate of high school completion. They also had a higher prevalence of self-harm history between ages 12 and 19 years but not a higher prevalence of physical or mental comorbidities.

Among all teens who had a pregnancy, 60,037 (36.8%) ended in a birth, including 59,485 (99.1%) live births. A further 106,135 (65.1%) ended in induced abortion, and 17,945 (11%) ended in miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy.

Overall, there were 6030 premature deaths among those without a teen pregnancy, or 1.9 per 10,000 person-years. There were 701 deaths among those with one teen pregnancy (4.1 per 10,000 person-years) and 345 deaths among those with two or more teen pregnancies (6.1 per 10,000 person-years).

The adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for mortality were 1.51 for those with one pregnancy and 2.14 for those with two or more pregnancies. Compared with no teen pregnancy, the AHRs for premature death were 1.41 if the first teen pregnancy ended in an induced abortion and 2.10 if it ended in a miscarriage or birth.

Comparing those with a teen pregnancy and those without, the AHRs for premature death were 1.25 from noninjury, 2.06 from unintentional injury, and 2.02 from intentional injury. Among patients with teen pregnancy, noninjury-related premature mortality was more common, at 2.0 per 10,000 person-years, than unintentional and intentional injuries, at 1.0 per 10,000 person-years and 0.4 per 10,000 person-years, respectively.

A teen pregnancy before age 16 years entailed the highest associated risk for premature death, with an AHR of 2.00.
 

Next Research Steps

“We were not surprised by our findings, but it was new to us to see that the risk for premature death was higher for women who had an induced abortion in their teen years,” said Dr. Ray. “It was even higher in those whose pregnancy ended in a birth or miscarriage.”

The investigators plan to evaluate whether the future risk for premature death after teen pregnancy differs by the type of induced abortion, such as procedural or pharmaceutical, or by whether the pregnancy ended in a live birth, stillbirth, or miscarriage. Among those with a live birth, the researchers will also analyze the risk for premature death in relation to whether the newborn was taken into custody by child protection services in Canada.

Other factors associated with teen pregnancy and overall mortality, particularly adverse childhood experiences, may point to the reasons for premature mortality and should be studied further, the authors wrote. Structural and systems-related factors should be considered as well.
 

Stigmatization and Isolation 

“Some teens choose to become pregnant, but most teen pregnancies are unintended, which exposes shortcomings in the systems that exist to educate, guide, and support young people,” said Elizabeth Cook, a research scientist at Child Trends in Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Cook, who wasn’t involved with this study, wrote an accompanying editorial in JAMA Network Open. She conducts studies of sexual and reproductive health for Child Trends.

“Teens who become pregnant often experience stigmatization and isolation that can make it more difficult to thrive in adulthood, especially if they lack the necessary support to navigate such a significant decision,” she said. “Fortunately, the systems that youths encounter, such as healthcare, education, and child welfare, are taking on a larger role in prevention efforts than they have in the past.”

These systems are shifting the burden of unintended teen pregnancy from the teens themselves and their behaviors to the health and education systems, Dr. Cook noted, though more work is needed around local policies and lack of access to healthcare facilities. 

“Teen pregnancy may offer an opportunity to intervene in the lives of people at higher risk for premature death, but knowing how best to offer support requires an understanding of the context of their lives,” she said. “As a starting point, we must celebrate and listen to all pregnant young people so they can tell us what they need to live long, fulfilled lives.”

The study was funded by grants from the PSI Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, as well as ICES, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Ray and Dr. Cook reported no relevant disclosures. 

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

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

Lieberman_David_Ore_web.jpg

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

Carethers_John_CA.jpg

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

Lieberman_David_Ore_web.jpg

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

Carethers_John_CA.jpg

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Blood-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), also known as a “liquid biopsy,” may be better than nothing among patients who skip established screening tests, but it can’t replace colonoscopy as the gold standard, according to two new modeling studies and an expert consensus commentary.

Although some patients find blood-based tests more convenient, the higher numbers of false positives and false negatives could lead to more CRC cases and deaths.

“Based on their current characteristics, blood tests should not be recommended to replace established colorectal cancer screening tests, since blood tests are neither as effective nor cost-effective and would worsen outcomes,” David Lieberman, MD, AGAF, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s CRC Workshop Panel, and lead author of the expert commentary, said in a statement.

Lieberman_David_Ore_web.jpg

The blood tests detect circulating nucleotides, such as cell-free DNA or metabolic products associated with CRC and its precursors. Current tests are in development by Guardant Health and Freenome.

The two modeling studies, published in Gastroenterology on March 26, analyzed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of blood-based CRC screening that meets Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) coverage criteria, as well as the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening with blood-based biomarkers versus fecal tests or colonoscopy.

Also published on March 26 in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the expert commentary included key conclusions from the AGA CRC Workshop, which analyzed the two modeling studies.
 

Comparing CRC Screening Methods

In the first modeling study, an international team of researchers ran three microsimulation models for CRC to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of triennial blood-based screening for ages 45-75, compared with no screening, annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), triennial stool DNA testing combined with a FIT assay, and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. The researchers used CMS coverage criteria for blood tests, with a sensitivity of at least 74% for detection of CRC and specificity of at least 90%.

Without screening, the models predicted between 77 and 88 CRC cases and between 32 and 36 deaths per 1,000 individuals, costing between $5.3 million to $5.8 million. Compared with no screening, blood-based screening was considered cost-effective, with an additional cost of $25,600 to $43,700 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (QALYG).

However, compared with the FIT, stool, and colonoscopy options, blood-based screening was not cost-effective, with both a decrease in QALYG and an increase in costs. FIT was more effective and less costly, with 5-24 QALYG and nearly $3.5 million cheaper than blood-based screening, even when blood-based uptake was 20 percentage points higher than FIT uptake.

In the second modeling study, US researchers compared triennial blood-based screening with established alternatives at the CMS thresholds of 74% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

Overall, a blood-based test at the CMS minimum reduced CRC incidence by 40% and CRC mortality by 52% versus no screening. However, a blood-based test was significantly less effective than triennial stool DNA testing, annual FIT, and colonoscopy every 10 years, which reduced CRC incidence by 68%-79% and CRC mortality by 73%-81%.

Assuming a blood-based test would cost the same as a multi-target stool test, the blood-based test would cost $28,500 per QALYG versus no screening. At the same time, FIT, colonoscopy, and stool DNA testing were less costly and more effective. In general, the blood-based test would match FIT’s clinical outcomes if it achieved 1.4- to 1.8-fold the participation rate for FIT.

Even still, the sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesion (APL) was a key determinant. A paradigm-changing blood-based test would need to have higher than 90% sensitivity for CRC and 80% for APL, 90% specificity, and cost less than $120 to $140, the study authors wrote.

“High APL sensitivity, which can result in CRC prevention, should be a top priority for screening test developers,” the authors wrote. “APL detection should not be penalized by a definition of test specificity that focuses on CRC only.”
 

Additional Considerations

The AGA CRC Workshop Panel met in September 2023 to review the two modeling studies and other data on blood-based tests for CRC. Overall, the group concluded that a triennial blood test that meets minimal CMS criteria would likely result in better outcomes than no screening and provide a simple process to encourage more people to participate in screening.

However, patients who may have declined colonoscopy should understand the need for a colonoscopy if blood-based tests show abnormal results, the commentary authors wrote.

In addition, because blood-based tests for CRC appear to be less effective and more costly than current screening options, they shouldn’t be recommended to replace established screening methods. Although these blood-based tests may improve screening rates and outcomes in unscreened people, substituting blood tests for other effective tests would increase costs and worsen patient outcomes.

Beyond that, they wrote, the industry should consider other potential benchmarks for an effective blood test, such as a sensitivity for stage I-III CRC of greater than 90% and sensitivity for advanced adenomas of 40%-50% or higher.

Carethers_John_CA.jpg

“Unless we have the expectation of high sensitivity and specificity, blood-based colorectal cancer tests could lead to false positive and false negative results, which are both bad for patient outcomes,” John M. Carethers, MD, AGAF, vice chancellor for health sciences at UC San Diego, AGA past president, and a member of the AGA CRC Workshop panel, said in a statement.

Several authors reported consultant roles and funding support from numerous companies, including Guardant Health and Freenome.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most survivors of childhood cancer don’t meet surveillance guidelines that recommend screening for adult cancers or other long-term adverse effects of treatment, according to a new study.

Among childhood cancer survivors in Ontario, Canada, who faced an elevated risk due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments, 53% followed screening recommendations for cardiomyopathy, 13% met colorectal cancer screening guidelines, and 6% adhered to breast cancer screening guidelines.

“Although over 80% of children newly diagnosed with cancer will become long-term survivors, as many as four out of five of these survivors will develop a serious or life-threatening late effect of their cancer therapy by age 45,” lead author Jennifer Shuldiner, PhD, MPH, a scientist at Women’s College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care in Toronto, told this news organization.

For instance, the risk for colorectal cancer in childhood cancer survivors is two to three times higher than it is among the general population, and the risk for breast cancer is similar between those who underwent chest radiation and those with a BRCA mutation. As many as 50% of those who received anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation involving the heart later develop cardiotoxicity.

The North American Children’s Oncology Group has published long-term follow-up guidelines for survivors of childhood cancer, yet many survivors don’t follow them because of lack of awareness or other barriers, said Dr. Shuldiner.

“Prior research has shown that many survivors do not complete these recommended tests,” she said. “With better knowledge of this at-risk population, we can design, test, and implement appropriate interventions and supports to tackle the issues.”

The study was published online on March 11 in CMAJ. 
 

Changes in Adherence 

The researchers conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study analyzing Ontario healthcare administrative data for adult survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 2014 who faced an elevated risk for therapy-related colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or cardiomyopathy. The research team then assessed long-term adherence to the North American Children’s Oncology Group guidelines and predictors of adherence.

Among 3241 survivors, 3205 (99%) were at elevated risk for cardiomyopathy, 327 (10%) were at elevated risk for colorectal cancer, and 234 (7%) were at elevated risk for breast cancer. In addition, 2806 (87%) were at risk for one late effect, 345 (11%) were at risk for two late effects, and 90 (3%) were at risk for three late effects.

Overall, 53%, 13%, and 6% were adherent to their recommended surveillance for cardiomyopathy, colorectal cancer, and breast cancer, respectively. Over time, adherence increased for colorectal cancer and cardiomyopathy but decreased for breast cancer.

In addition, patients who were older at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for colorectal and breast cancers, whereas those who were younger at diagnosis were more likely to follow screening guidelines for cardiomyopathy.

During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, the proportion of time spent adherent was 43% for cardiomyopathy, 14% for colorectal cancer, and 10% for breast cancer.

Survivors who attended a long-term follow-up clinic in the previous year had low adherence rates as well, though they were higher than in the rest of the cohort. In this group, the proportion of time that was spent adherent was 71% for cardiomyopathy, 27% for colorectal cancer, and 15% for breast cancer.

Shuldiner and colleagues are launching a research trial to determine whether a provincial support system can help childhood cancer survivors receive the recommended surveillance. The support system provides information about screening recommendations to survivors as well as reminders and sends key information to their family doctors.

“We now understand that childhood cancer survivors need help to complete the recommended tests,” said Dr. Shuldiner. “If the trial is successful, we hope it will be implemented in Ontario.” 
 

Survivorship Care Plans 

Low screening rates may result from a lack of awareness about screening recommendations and the negative long-term effects of cancer treatments, the study authors wrote. Cancer survivors, caregivers, family physicians, specialists, and survivor support groups can share the responsibility of spreading awareness and adhering to guidelines, they noted. In some cases, a survivorship care plan (SCP) may help.

“SCPs are intended to improve adherence by providing follow-up information and facilitating the transition from cancer treatment to survivorship and from pediatric to adult care,” Adam Yan, MD, a staff oncologist and oncology informatics lead at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, told this news organization.

Dr. Yan, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched surveillance adherence for secondary cancers and cardiac dysfunction among childhood cancer survivors. He and his colleagues found that screening rates were typically low among survivors who faced high risks for cardiac dysfunction and breast, colorectal, or skin cancers.

However, having a survivorship care plan seemed to help, and survivors treated after 1990 were more likely to have an SCP.

“SCP possession by high-risk survivors was associated with increased breast, skin, and cardiac surveillance,” he said. “It is uncertain whether SCP possession leads to adherence or whether SCP possession is a marker of survivors who are focused on their health and thus likely to adhere to preventive health practices, including surveillance.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and ICES, which receives support from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Shuldiner received a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Health System Impact Postdoctoral Fellowship in support of the work. Dr. Yan disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Routine use of rapid respiratory virus testing in the emergency department (ED) appears to show limited benefit among patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection (ARI), according to a new study.

Rapid viral testing wasn’t associated with reduced antibiotic use, ED length of stay, or rates of ED return visits or hospitalization. However, testing was associated with a small increase in antiviral prescriptions and a small reduction in blood tests and chest x-rays.

“Our interest in studying the benefits of rapid viral testing in emergency departments comes from a commitment to diagnostic stewardship — ensuring that the right tests are administered to the right patients at the right time while also curbing overuse,” said lead author Tilmann Schober, MD, a resident in pediatric infectious disease at McGill University and Montreal Children’s Hospital.

“Following the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, we have seen a surge in the availability of rapid viral testing, including molecular multiplex panels,” he said. “However, the actual impact of these advancements on patient care in the ED remains uncertain.”

The study was published online on March 4, 2024, in JAMA Internal Medicine).
 

Rapid Viral Testing

Dr. Schober and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials to understand whether rapid testing for respiratory viruses was associated with patient treatment in the ED.

In particular, the research team looked at whether testing in patients with suspected ARI was associated with decreased antibiotic use, ancillary tests, ED length of stay, ED return visits, hospitalization, and increased influenza antiviral treatment.

Among the trials, seven studies included molecular testing, and eight used multiplex panels, including influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza/RSV/adenovirus/parainfluenza, or a panel of 15 or more respiratory viruses. No study evaluated testing for SARS-CoV-2. The research team reported risk ratios (RRs) and risk difference estimates.

In general, routine rapid viral testing was associated with higher use of influenza antivirals (RR, 1.33) and lower use of chest radiography (RR, 0.88) and blood tests (RR, 0.81). However, the magnitude of these effects was small. For instance, to achieve one additional viral prescription, 70 patients would need to be tested, and to save one x-ray, 30 patients would need to be tested.

“This suggests that, while statistically significant, the practical impact of these secondary outcomes may not justify the extensive effort and resources involved in widespread testing,” Dr. Schober said.

In addition, there was no association between rapid testing and antibiotic use (RR, 0.99), urine testing (RR, 0.95), ED length of stay (0 h), return visits (RR, 0.93), or hospitalization (RR, 1.01).

Notably, there was no association between rapid viral testing and antibiotic use in any prespecified subgroup based on age, test method, publication date, number of viral targets, risk of bias, or industry funding, the authors said. They concluded that rapid virus testing should be reserved for patients for whom the testing will change treatment, such as high-risk patients or those with severe disease.

“It’s crucial to note that our study specifically evaluated the impact of systematic testing of patients with signs and symptoms of acute respiratory infection. Our findings do not advocate against rapid respiratory virus testing in general,” Dr. Schober said. “There is well-established evidence supporting the benefits of viral testing in certain contexts, such as hospitalized patients, to guide infection control practices or in specific high-risk populations.”
 

Future Research

Additional studies should look at testing among subgroups, particularly those with high-risk conditions, the study authors wrote. In addition, the research team would like to study the implementation of novel diagnostic stewardship programs as compared with well-established antibiotic stewardship programs.

“Acute respiratory tract illnesses represent one of the most common reasons for being evaluated in an acute care setting, especially in pediatrics, and these visits have traditionally resulted in excessive antibiotic prescribing, despite the etiology of the infection mostly being viral,” said Suchitra Rao, MBBS, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and associate medical director of infection prevention and control at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Dr. Rao, who wasn’t involved with this study, has surveyed ED providers about respiratory viral testing and changes in clinical decision-making. She and colleagues found that providers most commonly changed clinical decision-making while prescribing an antiviral if influenza was detected or withholding antivirals if influenza wasn’t detected.

“Multiplex testing for respiratory viruses and atypical bacteria is becoming more widespread, with newer-generation platforms having shorter turnaround times, and offers the potential to impact point-of-care decision-making,” she said. “However, these tests are expensive, and more studies are needed to explore whether respiratory pathogen panel testing in the acute care setting has an impact in terms of reduced antibiotic use as well as other outcomes, including ED visits, health-seeking behaviors, and hospitalization.”

For instance, more recent studies around SARS-CoV-2 with newer-generation panels may make a difference, as well as multiplex panels that include numerous viral targets, she said.

“Further RCTs are required to evaluate the impact of influenza/RSV/SARS-CoV-2 panels, as well as respiratory pathogen panel testing in conjunction with antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, which have been associated with improved outcomes for other rapid molecular platforms, such as blood culture identification panels,” Rao said.

The study was funded by the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Dr. Schober reported no disclosures, and several study authors reported grants or personal fees from companies outside of this research. Dr. Rao disclosed no relevant relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood test, aimed at detecting abnormal DNA signals in people with an average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), correctly detected CRC in most people confirmed to have the disease, according to a new study.

The cfDNA blood test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Other noninvasive screening methods have sensitivity from 67% to 94% for CRC and 22% to 43% for advanced precancerous lesions.

“The results of the study are a promising step toward developing more convenient tools to detect colorectal cancer early while it is more easily treated,” said senior author William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, medical director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options,” he said.

The study was published online on March 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Analyzing the Blood Test’s Accuracy 

Dr. Grady and colleagues conducted a multisite clinical trial called ECLIPSE, which compared the sensitivity and specificity of a cfDNA blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) against that obtained with colonoscopy, the gold standard for CRC screening. Guardant led and funded the study.

Grady_William_M_SEATTLE_web.jpg

Guardant’s Shield test is designed to detect CRC through genomic alterations, aberrant methylation status, and fragmentomic patterns, which show up as an “abnormal signal detected” result. Similar blood tests are being developed as “liquid biopsy” tests for other emerging cancer screenings as well.

The study included 7861 people with average CRC risk who underwent routine screening with colonoscopy at 265 sites in the United States, including primary care and endoscopy centers in academic and community-based institutions. Eligible people were aged 45-84 years (average age, 60 years), and 53.7% were women. The race and ethnicity characteristics of the participants closely mirrored the demographic distribution in the 2020 US Census.

Overall, 54 of 65 (83.1%) participants with colonoscopy-detected CRC had a positive cfDNA blood test. However, 11 participants (16.9%) with CRC had a negative test.

The cfDNA blood test identified 42 of 48 stage I, II, or III CRCs, indicating a sensitivity of 87.5%, including 65% for stage I cancers, 100% for stage II cancers, and 100% for stage III cancers. The test also identified all 10 of the stage IV CRC cases. There were no substantial differences in sensitivity for CRC based on primary tumor location, tumor histologic grade, or demographic characteristics.

Among participants without advanced colorectal neoplasia on colonoscopy, 89.6% had a negative cfDNA blood test, and 10.4% had a positive test. 

Among those with a negative colonoscopy — with no CRC, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions — specificity was 89.9%.

Among 1116 participants with advanced precancerous lesions identified as the most advanced lesion on colonoscopy, the cfDNA blood test was positive for 147, indicating a sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions of 13.2%.

Although the blood test has sensitivity similar to stool-based tests for CRC, the accuracy is lower than it is with colonoscopy, which remains the current gold standard for CRC screening, Dr. Grady said.

“Colorectal cancer is common and very preventable with screening, but only about 50% to 60% of people who are eligible for screening actually take those tests,” he said. “Getting people to be screened for cancer works best when we offer them screening options and then let them choose what works best for them.”
 

Future Research

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among US adults and is now the third most diagnosed cancer for people younger than 50 years, Dr. Grady said. Although overall CRC death rates have declined in recent years, the rates among those younger than 55 years have increased since the mid-2000s.

“When colorectal cancer is found earlier and the cancer has not yet spread throughout the body, patient outcomes are much better, as reflected in 5-year survival being much better. It makes sense that an effective blood-based test could have a potential role, in particular for those not getting screened yet,” said Joshua Melson, MD, AGAF, clinical professor of medicine and director of the High-Risk Clinic for Gastrointestinal Cancers at the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson.

Dr. Melson, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted that blood-based testing shows promise for cancer detection but needs additional support for real-world implementation. For instance, the Shield blood test has difficulty detecting precancerous lesions, and it remains unclear what the optimal intervals for repeat testing would be after a negative test, he said. In addition, screening programs will need to ensure they have capacity to effectively deal with a positive test result.

“For a screening program to actually work, when a noninvasive test (whether blood-based or stool-based) is read as positive, those patients need to have a follow-up colonoscopy,” he said. 

Proper communication with patients will be important as well, said Gloria Coronado, PhD, associate director of Population Sciences at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson. Dr. Coronado, who wasn’t involved with this study, has developed CRC screening messages for specific patient populations and studied patient reactions to CRC blood tests. 

In a study by Dr. Coronado and colleagues, among more than 2000 patients who passively declined fecal testing and had an upcoming clinic visit, CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the group offered the blood test vs those offered usual care. In qualitative interviews, one patient said of the blood-based testing option, “I was screaming hallelujah!”

“Patients believed that a blood test would be more accurate than a stool-based test. However, for the detection of advanced adenomas, the reverse is true,” she said. “It will be important to balance the high acceptance and enthusiasm for the blood test with the lower performance of the blood test compared to other tests already on the market.”

In a statement accompanying the study’s publication, the American Gastroenterological Association welcomed these results as an exciting development, but cautioned that a blood-based test was not interchangeable with colonoscopy.

“The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has determined it will cover a blood test for colorectal cancer screening every three years if the test achieves 74% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity, and FDA approval,” the statement reads. “However, a blood test that meets only the CMS criteria will be inferior to current recommended tests and should not be recommended to replace current tests. Such a test could be recommended for patients who decline all other recommended tests, since any screening is better than no screening at all.”

Dr. Grady is a paid member of Guardant’s scientific advisory board and advised on the design and procedure of the clinical trial and data analysis. Dr. Melson previously served as consultant for Guardant. Dr. Coronado reported no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood test, aimed at detecting abnormal DNA signals in people with an average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), correctly detected CRC in most people confirmed to have the disease, according to a new study.

The cfDNA blood test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Other noninvasive screening methods have sensitivity from 67% to 94% for CRC and 22% to 43% for advanced precancerous lesions.

“The results of the study are a promising step toward developing more convenient tools to detect colorectal cancer early while it is more easily treated,” said senior author William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, medical director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options,” he said.

The study was published online on March 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Analyzing the Blood Test’s Accuracy 

Dr. Grady and colleagues conducted a multisite clinical trial called ECLIPSE, which compared the sensitivity and specificity of a cfDNA blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) against that obtained with colonoscopy, the gold standard for CRC screening. Guardant led and funded the study.

Grady_William_M_SEATTLE_web.jpg

Guardant’s Shield test is designed to detect CRC through genomic alterations, aberrant methylation status, and fragmentomic patterns, which show up as an “abnormal signal detected” result. Similar blood tests are being developed as “liquid biopsy” tests for other emerging cancer screenings as well.

The study included 7861 people with average CRC risk who underwent routine screening with colonoscopy at 265 sites in the United States, including primary care and endoscopy centers in academic and community-based institutions. Eligible people were aged 45-84 years (average age, 60 years), and 53.7% were women. The race and ethnicity characteristics of the participants closely mirrored the demographic distribution in the 2020 US Census.

Overall, 54 of 65 (83.1%) participants with colonoscopy-detected CRC had a positive cfDNA blood test. However, 11 participants (16.9%) with CRC had a negative test.

The cfDNA blood test identified 42 of 48 stage I, II, or III CRCs, indicating a sensitivity of 87.5%, including 65% for stage I cancers, 100% for stage II cancers, and 100% for stage III cancers. The test also identified all 10 of the stage IV CRC cases. There were no substantial differences in sensitivity for CRC based on primary tumor location, tumor histologic grade, or demographic characteristics.

Among participants without advanced colorectal neoplasia on colonoscopy, 89.6% had a negative cfDNA blood test, and 10.4% had a positive test. 

Among those with a negative colonoscopy — with no CRC, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions — specificity was 89.9%.

Among 1116 participants with advanced precancerous lesions identified as the most advanced lesion on colonoscopy, the cfDNA blood test was positive for 147, indicating a sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions of 13.2%.

Although the blood test has sensitivity similar to stool-based tests for CRC, the accuracy is lower than it is with colonoscopy, which remains the current gold standard for CRC screening, Dr. Grady said.

“Colorectal cancer is common and very preventable with screening, but only about 50% to 60% of people who are eligible for screening actually take those tests,” he said. “Getting people to be screened for cancer works best when we offer them screening options and then let them choose what works best for them.”
 

Future Research

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among US adults and is now the third most diagnosed cancer for people younger than 50 years, Dr. Grady said. Although overall CRC death rates have declined in recent years, the rates among those younger than 55 years have increased since the mid-2000s.

“When colorectal cancer is found earlier and the cancer has not yet spread throughout the body, patient outcomes are much better, as reflected in 5-year survival being much better. It makes sense that an effective blood-based test could have a potential role, in particular for those not getting screened yet,” said Joshua Melson, MD, AGAF, clinical professor of medicine and director of the High-Risk Clinic for Gastrointestinal Cancers at the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson.

Dr. Melson, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted that blood-based testing shows promise for cancer detection but needs additional support for real-world implementation. For instance, the Shield blood test has difficulty detecting precancerous lesions, and it remains unclear what the optimal intervals for repeat testing would be after a negative test, he said. In addition, screening programs will need to ensure they have capacity to effectively deal with a positive test result.

“For a screening program to actually work, when a noninvasive test (whether blood-based or stool-based) is read as positive, those patients need to have a follow-up colonoscopy,” he said. 

Proper communication with patients will be important as well, said Gloria Coronado, PhD, associate director of Population Sciences at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson. Dr. Coronado, who wasn’t involved with this study, has developed CRC screening messages for specific patient populations and studied patient reactions to CRC blood tests. 

In a study by Dr. Coronado and colleagues, among more than 2000 patients who passively declined fecal testing and had an upcoming clinic visit, CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the group offered the blood test vs those offered usual care. In qualitative interviews, one patient said of the blood-based testing option, “I was screaming hallelujah!”

“Patients believed that a blood test would be more accurate than a stool-based test. However, for the detection of advanced adenomas, the reverse is true,” she said. “It will be important to balance the high acceptance and enthusiasm for the blood test with the lower performance of the blood test compared to other tests already on the market.”

In a statement accompanying the study’s publication, the American Gastroenterological Association welcomed these results as an exciting development, but cautioned that a blood-based test was not interchangeable with colonoscopy.

“The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has determined it will cover a blood test for colorectal cancer screening every three years if the test achieves 74% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity, and FDA approval,” the statement reads. “However, a blood test that meets only the CMS criteria will be inferior to current recommended tests and should not be recommended to replace current tests. Such a test could be recommended for patients who decline all other recommended tests, since any screening is better than no screening at all.”

Dr. Grady is a paid member of Guardant’s scientific advisory board and advised on the design and procedure of the clinical trial and data analysis. Dr. Melson previously served as consultant for Guardant. Dr. Coronado reported no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood test, aimed at detecting abnormal DNA signals in people with an average risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), correctly detected CRC in most people confirmed to have the disease, according to a new study.

The cfDNA blood test had 83% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. Other noninvasive screening methods have sensitivity from 67% to 94% for CRC and 22% to 43% for advanced precancerous lesions.

“The results of the study are a promising step toward developing more convenient tools to detect colorectal cancer early while it is more easily treated,” said senior author William M. Grady, MD, AGAF, medical director of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options,” he said.

The study was published online on March 14 in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Analyzing the Blood Test’s Accuracy 

Dr. Grady and colleagues conducted a multisite clinical trial called ECLIPSE, which compared the sensitivity and specificity of a cfDNA blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) against that obtained with colonoscopy, the gold standard for CRC screening. Guardant led and funded the study.

Grady_William_M_SEATTLE_web.jpg

Guardant’s Shield test is designed to detect CRC through genomic alterations, aberrant methylation status, and fragmentomic patterns, which show up as an “abnormal signal detected” result. Similar blood tests are being developed as “liquid biopsy” tests for other emerging cancer screenings as well.

The study included 7861 people with average CRC risk who underwent routine screening with colonoscopy at 265 sites in the United States, including primary care and endoscopy centers in academic and community-based institutions. Eligible people were aged 45-84 years (average age, 60 years), and 53.7% were women. The race and ethnicity characteristics of the participants closely mirrored the demographic distribution in the 2020 US Census.

Overall, 54 of 65 (83.1%) participants with colonoscopy-detected CRC had a positive cfDNA blood test. However, 11 participants (16.9%) with CRC had a negative test.

The cfDNA blood test identified 42 of 48 stage I, II, or III CRCs, indicating a sensitivity of 87.5%, including 65% for stage I cancers, 100% for stage II cancers, and 100% for stage III cancers. The test also identified all 10 of the stage IV CRC cases. There were no substantial differences in sensitivity for CRC based on primary tumor location, tumor histologic grade, or demographic characteristics.

Among participants without advanced colorectal neoplasia on colonoscopy, 89.6% had a negative cfDNA blood test, and 10.4% had a positive test. 

Among those with a negative colonoscopy — with no CRC, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions — specificity was 89.9%.

Among 1116 participants with advanced precancerous lesions identified as the most advanced lesion on colonoscopy, the cfDNA blood test was positive for 147, indicating a sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions of 13.2%.

Although the blood test has sensitivity similar to stool-based tests for CRC, the accuracy is lower than it is with colonoscopy, which remains the current gold standard for CRC screening, Dr. Grady said.

“Colorectal cancer is common and very preventable with screening, but only about 50% to 60% of people who are eligible for screening actually take those tests,” he said. “Getting people to be screened for cancer works best when we offer them screening options and then let them choose what works best for them.”
 

Future Research

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among US adults and is now the third most diagnosed cancer for people younger than 50 years, Dr. Grady said. Although overall CRC death rates have declined in recent years, the rates among those younger than 55 years have increased since the mid-2000s.

“When colorectal cancer is found earlier and the cancer has not yet spread throughout the body, patient outcomes are much better, as reflected in 5-year survival being much better. It makes sense that an effective blood-based test could have a potential role, in particular for those not getting screened yet,” said Joshua Melson, MD, AGAF, clinical professor of medicine and director of the High-Risk Clinic for Gastrointestinal Cancers at the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson.

Dr. Melson, who wasn’t involved with this study, noted that blood-based testing shows promise for cancer detection but needs additional support for real-world implementation. For instance, the Shield blood test has difficulty detecting precancerous lesions, and it remains unclear what the optimal intervals for repeat testing would be after a negative test, he said. In addition, screening programs will need to ensure they have capacity to effectively deal with a positive test result.

“For a screening program to actually work, when a noninvasive test (whether blood-based or stool-based) is read as positive, those patients need to have a follow-up colonoscopy,” he said. 

Proper communication with patients will be important as well, said Gloria Coronado, PhD, associate director of Population Sciences at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson. Dr. Coronado, who wasn’t involved with this study, has developed CRC screening messages for specific patient populations and studied patient reactions to CRC blood tests. 

In a study by Dr. Coronado and colleagues, among more than 2000 patients who passively declined fecal testing and had an upcoming clinic visit, CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the group offered the blood test vs those offered usual care. In qualitative interviews, one patient said of the blood-based testing option, “I was screaming hallelujah!”

“Patients believed that a blood test would be more accurate than a stool-based test. However, for the detection of advanced adenomas, the reverse is true,” she said. “It will be important to balance the high acceptance and enthusiasm for the blood test with the lower performance of the blood test compared to other tests already on the market.”

In a statement accompanying the study’s publication, the American Gastroenterological Association welcomed these results as an exciting development, but cautioned that a blood-based test was not interchangeable with colonoscopy.

“The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has determined it will cover a blood test for colorectal cancer screening every three years if the test achieves 74% sensitivity for CRC, 90% specificity, and FDA approval,” the statement reads. “However, a blood test that meets only the CMS criteria will be inferior to current recommended tests and should not be recommended to replace current tests. Such a test could be recommended for patients who decline all other recommended tests, since any screening is better than no screening at all.”

Dr. Grady is a paid member of Guardant’s scientific advisory board and advised on the design and procedure of the clinical trial and data analysis. Dr. Melson previously served as consultant for Guardant. Dr. Coronado reported no relevant disclosures. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Select adult patients with immunoglobulin A-tissue transglutaminase antibody levels (IgA-tTG) greater than or equal to 10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and a moderate-to-high pretest probability of celiac disease could be diagnosed without undergoing invasive endoscopy and duodenal biopsy, according to a new study.

Current international guidelines recommend duodenal biopsies to confirm a celiac disease diagnosis in adult patients, but growing evidence suggests invasive procedures may not be needed, the authors wrote.

“Our study confirms the high accuracy of serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in select adult patients,” said Mohamed G. Shiha, MBBCh, MRCP, lead author and a clinical research fellow in gastroenterology at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals in the United Kingdom.

celiac_disease_1094058742_web.jpg

“This no-biopsy approach could lead to a shorter time to diagnosis, increased patient satisfaction, and reduced healthcare costs,” he said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Evaluating the No-Biopsy Approach

Dr. Shiha and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate to the accuracy of a no-biopsy approach for diagnosing celiac disease in adults. They looked for studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN compared with duodenal biopsies (with a Marsh grade ≥2) in adults with suspected celiac disease.

The research team used a bivariate random-effects model to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Then the positive and negative likelihood ratios were used to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the no-biopsy approach across different pretest probabilities of celiac disease.

Among 18 studies with 12,103 participants from 15 countries, the pooled prevalence of biopsy-proven celiac disease was 62%. The proportion of patients with IgA-tTG ≥10xULN was 32%.

The summary sensitivity of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN was 51%, and the summary specificity was 100% for the diagnosis of celiac disease. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 183.42 and .49, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was .83.

Overall, the PPV of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN to identify patients with celiac disease was 98%, which varied according to pretest probability of celiac disease in the studied population. Specifically, the PPV was 65%, 88%, 95%, and 99% if celiac disease prevalence was 1%, 4%, 10%, and 40%, respectively. The 40% prevalence represents the lower confidence interval of the pooled prevalence from the included studies, the authors noted.

“We provided PPV estimates of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN for common pretest probabilities of coeliac disease to aid clinicians and patients in reaching an informed decision on a no-biopsy diagnosis based on the best available evidence,” the authors wrote.
 

Considering Additional Factors

Due to the increased accuracy of serological tests, pediatric guidelines have adopted a no-biopsy approach, the authors wrote. Children with IgA-tTG ≥10xULN and positive serum endomysial antibodies (EMA) can be diagnosed with celiac disease without biopsy.

However, the no-biopsy approach remains controversial for diagnosing adult patients and requires additional study, the authors wrote. They noted a limitation that all included studies were conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings and excluded patients with known celiac disease or on a gluten-free diet, so the results may not be generalizable to primary care settings.

In addition, relying on serology testing alone could lead to potential false-positive diagnoses, unnecessary dietary restriction, and negative effects on patients’ quality of life, the authors wrote.

At the same time, duodenal biopsy may not always be accurate due to inadequate sampling and could result in false-negative histology. The no-biopsy approach could mitigate this potential risk, the authors noted.

“This study systematically collates the growing data supporting the accuracy of antibody testing to diagnose celiac disease,” said Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center and director of clinical research for the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York. Dr. Lebwohl wasn’t involved with this study.

Lebwohl_Benjamin_NY_web.jpg

Select adult patients with immunoglobulin A-tissue transglutaminase antibody levels (IgA-tTG) greater than or equal to 10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and a moderate-to-high pretest probability of celiac disease could be diagnosed without undergoing invasive endoscopy and duodenal biopsy, according to a new study.

Current international guidelines recommend duodenal biopsies to confirm a celiac disease diagnosis in adult patients, but growing evidence suggests invasive procedures may not be needed, the authors wrote.

“Our study confirms the high accuracy of serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in select adult patients,” said Mohamed G. Shiha, MBBCh, MRCP, lead author and a clinical research fellow in gastroenterology at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals in the United Kingdom.

celiac_disease_1094058742_web.jpg

“This no-biopsy approach could lead to a shorter time to diagnosis, increased patient satisfaction, and reduced healthcare costs,” he said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Evaluating the No-Biopsy Approach

Dr. Shiha and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate to the accuracy of a no-biopsy approach for diagnosing celiac disease in adults. They looked for studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN compared with duodenal biopsies (with a Marsh grade ≥2) in adults with suspected celiac disease.

The research team used a bivariate random-effects model to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Then the positive and negative likelihood ratios were used to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the no-biopsy approach across different pretest probabilities of celiac disease.

Among 18 studies with 12,103 participants from 15 countries, the pooled prevalence of biopsy-proven celiac disease was 62%. The proportion of patients with IgA-tTG ≥10xULN was 32%.

The summary sensitivity of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN was 51%, and the summary specificity was 100% for the diagnosis of celiac disease. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 183.42 and .49, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was .83.

Overall, the PPV of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN to identify patients with celiac disease was 98%, which varied according to pretest probability of celiac disease in the studied population. Specifically, the PPV was 65%, 88%, 95%, and 99% if celiac disease prevalence was 1%, 4%, 10%, and 40%, respectively. The 40% prevalence represents the lower confidence interval of the pooled prevalence from the included studies, the authors noted.

“We provided PPV estimates of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN for common pretest probabilities of coeliac disease to aid clinicians and patients in reaching an informed decision on a no-biopsy diagnosis based on the best available evidence,” the authors wrote.
 

Considering Additional Factors

Due to the increased accuracy of serological tests, pediatric guidelines have adopted a no-biopsy approach, the authors wrote. Children with IgA-tTG ≥10xULN and positive serum endomysial antibodies (EMA) can be diagnosed with celiac disease without biopsy.

However, the no-biopsy approach remains controversial for diagnosing adult patients and requires additional study, the authors wrote. They noted a limitation that all included studies were conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings and excluded patients with known celiac disease or on a gluten-free diet, so the results may not be generalizable to primary care settings.

In addition, relying on serology testing alone could lead to potential false-positive diagnoses, unnecessary dietary restriction, and negative effects on patients’ quality of life, the authors wrote.

At the same time, duodenal biopsy may not always be accurate due to inadequate sampling and could result in false-negative histology. The no-biopsy approach could mitigate this potential risk, the authors noted.

“This study systematically collates the growing data supporting the accuracy of antibody testing to diagnose celiac disease,” said Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center and director of clinical research for the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York. Dr. Lebwohl wasn’t involved with this study.

Lebwohl_Benjamin_NY_web.jpg

Select adult patients with immunoglobulin A-tissue transglutaminase antibody levels (IgA-tTG) greater than or equal to 10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) and a moderate-to-high pretest probability of celiac disease could be diagnosed without undergoing invasive endoscopy and duodenal biopsy, according to a new study.

Current international guidelines recommend duodenal biopsies to confirm a celiac disease diagnosis in adult patients, but growing evidence suggests invasive procedures may not be needed, the authors wrote.

“Our study confirms the high accuracy of serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in select adult patients,” said Mohamed G. Shiha, MBBCh, MRCP, lead author and a clinical research fellow in gastroenterology at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals in the United Kingdom.

celiac_disease_1094058742_web.jpg

“This no-biopsy approach could lead to a shorter time to diagnosis, increased patient satisfaction, and reduced healthcare costs,” he said.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Evaluating the No-Biopsy Approach

Dr. Shiha and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate to the accuracy of a no-biopsy approach for diagnosing celiac disease in adults. They looked for studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN compared with duodenal biopsies (with a Marsh grade ≥2) in adults with suspected celiac disease.

The research team used a bivariate random-effects model to calculate the summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. Then the positive and negative likelihood ratios were used to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the no-biopsy approach across different pretest probabilities of celiac disease.

Among 18 studies with 12,103 participants from 15 countries, the pooled prevalence of biopsy-proven celiac disease was 62%. The proportion of patients with IgA-tTG ≥10xULN was 32%.

The summary sensitivity of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN was 51%, and the summary specificity was 100% for the diagnosis of celiac disease. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 183.42 and .49, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was .83.

Overall, the PPV of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN to identify patients with celiac disease was 98%, which varied according to pretest probability of celiac disease in the studied population. Specifically, the PPV was 65%, 88%, 95%, and 99% if celiac disease prevalence was 1%, 4%, 10%, and 40%, respectively. The 40% prevalence represents the lower confidence interval of the pooled prevalence from the included studies, the authors noted.

“We provided PPV estimates of IgA-tTG ≥10xULN for common pretest probabilities of coeliac disease to aid clinicians and patients in reaching an informed decision on a no-biopsy diagnosis based on the best available evidence,” the authors wrote.
 

Considering Additional Factors

Due to the increased accuracy of serological tests, pediatric guidelines have adopted a no-biopsy approach, the authors wrote. Children with IgA-tTG ≥10xULN and positive serum endomysial antibodies (EMA) can be diagnosed with celiac disease without biopsy.

However, the no-biopsy approach remains controversial for diagnosing adult patients and requires additional study, the authors wrote. They noted a limitation that all included studies were conducted in secondary and tertiary care settings and excluded patients with known celiac disease or on a gluten-free diet, so the results may not be generalizable to primary care settings.

In addition, relying on serology testing alone could lead to potential false-positive diagnoses, unnecessary dietary restriction, and negative effects on patients’ quality of life, the authors wrote.

At the same time, duodenal biopsy may not always be accurate due to inadequate sampling and could result in false-negative histology. The no-biopsy approach could mitigate this potential risk, the authors noted.

“This study systematically collates the growing data supporting the accuracy of antibody testing to diagnose celiac disease,” said Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Columbia University Medical Center and director of clinical research for the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York. Dr. Lebwohl wasn’t involved with this study.

Lebwohl_Benjamin_NY_web.jpg

Various interventions that improve mood — such as psychological therapy, antidepressants, and exercise — reduce general inflammation and disease-specific biomarkers in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a new study.

“IBD is a distressing condition, and current medication that reduces inflammation is expensive and can have side effects,” said Natasha Seaton, first author and a PhD student at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London.

“Our study showed that interventions that treat mental health reduce levels of inflammation in the body,” she said. “This indicates that mood interventions could be a valuable tool in our approach to help those with IBD.”

The study was published online in eBioMedicine.
 

Analyzing Mood Interventions

Ms. Seaton and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults with IBD that measured inflammatory biomarker levels and tested a mood intervention, including those aimed at reducing depression, anxiety, stress, or distress or improving emotional well-being.

Looking at data from 28 randomized controlled trials with 1789 participants, the research team evaluated whether mood interventions affected IBD inflammation, particularly IBD indicators such as C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin, and other general inflammatory biomarkers.

The researchers found mood interventions significantly reduced levels of inflammatory biomarkers, compared with controls, corresponding to an 18% reduction in inflammatory biomarkers.

Psychological therapies had the best outcomes related to IBD inflammation, compared with antidepressants or exercise. These therapies included cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction.

Individual analyses of IBD-specific inflammatory markers found small but statistically significant reductions in C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin after a mood intervention. This could mean mood treatments have positive effects on both inflammation and disease-specific biomarkers, the authors wrote.

In addition, interventions that had a larger positive effect on mood had a greater effect in reducing inflammatory biomarkers. This suggests that a better mood could reduce IBD inflammation, they noted.

“We know stress-related feelings can increase inflammation, and the findings suggest that by improving mood, we can reduce this type of inflammation,” said Valeria Mondelli, MD, PhD, clinical professor of psychoneuroimmunology at King’s IoPPN.

Mondelli_Valeria_UK_web.jpg

Cost Benefit

Many IBD interventions and medications can be expensive for patients, have significant negative side effects, and have a lower long-term treatment response, the authors noted. Mood interventions, whether psychological therapy or medication, could potentially reduce costs and improve both mood and inflammation.

Previous studies have indicated that psychosocial factors, as well as mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, affect IBD symptom severity and progression, the authors wrote. However, researchers still need to understand the mechanisms behind this connection, including gut-brain dynamics.

Future research should focus on interventions that have been effective at improving mood in patients with IBD, assess inflammation and disease activity at numerous timepoints, and include potential variables related to illness self-management, the authors wrote.

In addition, implementation of mood interventions for IBD management may require better continuity of care and healthcare integration.

“Integrated mental health support, alongside pharmacological treatments, may offer a more holistic approach to IBD care, potentially leading to reduced disease and healthcare costs,” said Rona Moss-Morris, PhD, senior author and professor of psychology at King’s IoPPN.

MossMorris_Rona_UK_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Various interventions that improve mood — such as psychological therapy, antidepressants, and exercise — reduce general inflammation and disease-specific biomarkers in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a new study.

“IBD is a distressing condition, and current medication that reduces inflammation is expensive and can have side effects,” said Natasha Seaton, first author and a PhD student at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London.

“Our study showed that interventions that treat mental health reduce levels of inflammation in the body,” she said. “This indicates that mood interventions could be a valuable tool in our approach to help those with IBD.”

The study was published online in eBioMedicine.
 

Analyzing Mood Interventions

Ms. Seaton and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults with IBD that measured inflammatory biomarker levels and tested a mood intervention, including those aimed at reducing depression, anxiety, stress, or distress or improving emotional well-being.

Looking at data from 28 randomized controlled trials with 1789 participants, the research team evaluated whether mood interventions affected IBD inflammation, particularly IBD indicators such as C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin, and other general inflammatory biomarkers.

The researchers found mood interventions significantly reduced levels of inflammatory biomarkers, compared with controls, corresponding to an 18% reduction in inflammatory biomarkers.

Psychological therapies had the best outcomes related to IBD inflammation, compared with antidepressants or exercise. These therapies included cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction.

Individual analyses of IBD-specific inflammatory markers found small but statistically significant reductions in C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin after a mood intervention. This could mean mood treatments have positive effects on both inflammation and disease-specific biomarkers, the authors wrote.

In addition, interventions that had a larger positive effect on mood had a greater effect in reducing inflammatory biomarkers. This suggests that a better mood could reduce IBD inflammation, they noted.

“We know stress-related feelings can increase inflammation, and the findings suggest that by improving mood, we can reduce this type of inflammation,” said Valeria Mondelli, MD, PhD, clinical professor of psychoneuroimmunology at King’s IoPPN.

Mondelli_Valeria_UK_web.jpg

Cost Benefit

Many IBD interventions and medications can be expensive for patients, have significant negative side effects, and have a lower long-term treatment response, the authors noted. Mood interventions, whether psychological therapy or medication, could potentially reduce costs and improve both mood and inflammation.

Previous studies have indicated that psychosocial factors, as well as mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, affect IBD symptom severity and progression, the authors wrote. However, researchers still need to understand the mechanisms behind this connection, including gut-brain dynamics.

Future research should focus on interventions that have been effective at improving mood in patients with IBD, assess inflammation and disease activity at numerous timepoints, and include potential variables related to illness self-management, the authors wrote.

In addition, implementation of mood interventions for IBD management may require better continuity of care and healthcare integration.

“Integrated mental health support, alongside pharmacological treatments, may offer a more holistic approach to IBD care, potentially leading to reduced disease and healthcare costs,” said Rona Moss-Morris, PhD, senior author and professor of psychology at King’s IoPPN.

MossMorris_Rona_UK_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Various interventions that improve mood — such as psychological therapy, antidepressants, and exercise — reduce general inflammation and disease-specific biomarkers in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to a new study.

“IBD is a distressing condition, and current medication that reduces inflammation is expensive and can have side effects,” said Natasha Seaton, first author and a PhD student at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London.

“Our study showed that interventions that treat mental health reduce levels of inflammation in the body,” she said. “This indicates that mood interventions could be a valuable tool in our approach to help those with IBD.”

The study was published online in eBioMedicine.
 

Analyzing Mood Interventions

Ms. Seaton and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in adults with IBD that measured inflammatory biomarker levels and tested a mood intervention, including those aimed at reducing depression, anxiety, stress, or distress or improving emotional well-being.

Looking at data from 28 randomized controlled trials with 1789 participants, the research team evaluated whether mood interventions affected IBD inflammation, particularly IBD indicators such as C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin, and other general inflammatory biomarkers.

The researchers found mood interventions significantly reduced levels of inflammatory biomarkers, compared with controls, corresponding to an 18% reduction in inflammatory biomarkers.

Psychological therapies had the best outcomes related to IBD inflammation, compared with antidepressants or exercise. These therapies included cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, and mindfulness-based stress reduction.

Individual analyses of IBD-specific inflammatory markers found small but statistically significant reductions in C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin after a mood intervention. This could mean mood treatments have positive effects on both inflammation and disease-specific biomarkers, the authors wrote.

In addition, interventions that had a larger positive effect on mood had a greater effect in reducing inflammatory biomarkers. This suggests that a better mood could reduce IBD inflammation, they noted.

“We know stress-related feelings can increase inflammation, and the findings suggest that by improving mood, we can reduce this type of inflammation,” said Valeria Mondelli, MD, PhD, clinical professor of psychoneuroimmunology at King’s IoPPN.

Mondelli_Valeria_UK_web.jpg

Cost Benefit

Many IBD interventions and medications can be expensive for patients, have significant negative side effects, and have a lower long-term treatment response, the authors noted. Mood interventions, whether psychological therapy or medication, could potentially reduce costs and improve both mood and inflammation.

Previous studies have indicated that psychosocial factors, as well as mood disorders such as anxiety and depression, affect IBD symptom severity and progression, the authors wrote. However, researchers still need to understand the mechanisms behind this connection, including gut-brain dynamics.

Future research should focus on interventions that have been effective at improving mood in patients with IBD, assess inflammation and disease activity at numerous timepoints, and include potential variables related to illness self-management, the authors wrote.

In addition, implementation of mood interventions for IBD management may require better continuity of care and healthcare integration.

“Integrated mental health support, alongside pharmacological treatments, may offer a more holistic approach to IBD care, potentially leading to reduced disease and healthcare costs,” said Rona Moss-Morris, PhD, senior author and professor of psychology at King’s IoPPN.

MossMorris_Rona_UK_web.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.