From the Journals

Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.

The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterologists (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.

“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.

High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.

Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.

In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.

As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.

Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.

Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.

Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.

Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.

Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.

In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.

Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.

 

Patient-Centered Approach

The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.

In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.

“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.

El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.

“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”

The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.

The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterologists (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.

“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.

High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.

Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.

In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.

As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.

Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.

Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.

Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.

Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.

Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.

In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.

Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.

 

Patient-Centered Approach

The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.

In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.

“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.

El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.

“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”

The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.

The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterologists (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).

“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.

“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.

High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.

Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.

In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.

As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.

Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.

Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.

Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.

Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.

Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.

In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.

Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.

 

Patient-Centered Approach

The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.

In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.

“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.

El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.

“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”

The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In addition to healthy weight reduction through lifestyle changes, experts recommend anti-obesity medications and bariatric surgery to help manage metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in children with obesity, according to a new joint perspective paper.

Pediatric MASLD is the number-one cause of chronic liver disease in children and the number-one reason for liver transplant listing in young adults aged 18-40 years, said corresponding author Jennifer A. Panganiban, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

The paper, published in Obesity Pillars, represents “a call to action that has been long overdue,” Panganiban told GI & Hepatology News.

The goal of the authors was to bring global awareness to the recent changes in the pediatric MASLD landscape — especially in medication use — and to empower clinicians treating the disease, she explained.

The recommendations are based on a combination of the latest published evidence and clinical expertise from eight hepatologists/gastroenterologists and two physicians from the Obesity Medicine Association, Centennial, Colorado.

One of the major barriers to MASLD management in children is suboptimal screening resulting in underdiagnosis, said Panganiban. “Unfortunately, only up to 30% of children are being screened in their pediatrician’s office.”

The new guideline outlines the patient care process from screening, referral to a subspecialist, and workup; however, the primary focus is on treatment with medication options that were previously not available or underutilized, she said.

 

Successful and Sustainable Weight Loss

Adiposity and weight gain make MASLD worse, but weight reduction has been shown to improve the condition, the authors noted. Previous strategies for curbing MASLD in children with obesity have focused mainly on lifestyle changes, but with limited success.

Nevertheless, the authors recommend continuing physical activity and nutrition as treatments for MASLD in children, with a plan tailored specifically to the patient.

In addition, however, they suggest that anti-obesity medications started early in the disease may help reduce costs and improve future outcomes.

Although glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have not yet been studied specifically for pediatric MASLD, data from studies of pediatric obesity, diabetes, and other retrospective studies are encouraging, the authors wrote.

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for managing obesity in children and adolescents aged 12 years or older, they noted. And a recent phase 3a randomized trial showed that liraglutide, not yet approved for children younger than 12 years, led to a mean change in body mass index of 5.8% from baseline to 56 weeks in children aged 6-11 years with obesity.

GLP-1 RAs not only are effective for weight management but also improve other metabolic dysfunction indicators including cholesterol and blood pressure, which makes these medications an even more beneficial option for individuals with obesity and MASLD, Panganiban and colleagues wrote.

For example, a recent single-center study of 111 children with MASLD (mean age, 15 years) showed a significant improvement in alanine aminotransferase levels with the use of GLP-1 RAs, although body mass index and weight were unchanged.

Regaining weight after discontinuing GLP-1 RAs is the main barrier to their use for MASLD, the authors noted. In addition, GLP-1 RAs are contraindicated in some situations, such as in those with a history of serious hypersensitivity, and in patients with a personal or family history of either medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2 based on animal studies showing an association with the medications and thyroid C–cell tumors.

Other FDA-approved medication options for obesity in children include metformin, topiramate, and phentermine, as well as bupropion, lisdexamfetamine, and setmelanotide, the authors said.

Resmetirom, a thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist, which is another significant breakthrough in MASLD for adults, has not yet been tested or approved for pediatric use.

In addition to medications, metabolic bariatric surgery has shown effectiveness in children with obesity and/or MASLD by reducing liver fat and reversing fibrosis, as shown in the Teen-LABS study, the authors wrote. However, long-term data on fibrosis reversal are limited, and cost and access remain barriers.

 

More Research Needed

The joint expert review is intended as an educational tool that may require updates and should not be interpreted as rules for individual patient care, the authors cautioned. And physical activity and nutrition remain the primary treatment of MASLD and should be continued in conjunction with other treatment modalities, they emphasized.

Looking ahead, research is needed to develop accurate and reliable noninvasive biomarkers to diagnose and assess obesity treatment efficacy, Panganiban told GI & Hepatology News.

Also needed are multicenter randomized control trials in children with obesity involving different medications that have been successful in the treatment of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis/fibrosis in adults, such as GLP-1 RAs or resmetirom, she added.

 

Educating Clinicians on Early Identification

When obesity occurs in childhood, it starts a process of additional complications that arise in earlier ages in adults, said Saul J. Karpen, MD, chief scientific officer at the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, in an interview.“Given the epidemic of obesity, altered diets, and reduced physical activities during younger ages, it is not easy to identify which children are at greater risk of MASLD,” said Karpen.

“It requires insight from the care providers and often imaging, a blood test, or a referral to a pediatric hepatologist, and not every region has easy access to such expertise,” Karpen said.

The new review is important because it highlights the fact that obesity and its consequences are not limited to adulthood, and that educated clinicians are in a position to get an early start on treatment in children, Karpen noted.

The guideline received no outside funding. Panganiban and Karpen had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In addition to healthy weight reduction through lifestyle changes, experts recommend anti-obesity medications and bariatric surgery to help manage metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in children with obesity, according to a new joint perspective paper.

Pediatric MASLD is the number-one cause of chronic liver disease in children and the number-one reason for liver transplant listing in young adults aged 18-40 years, said corresponding author Jennifer A. Panganiban, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

The paper, published in Obesity Pillars, represents “a call to action that has been long overdue,” Panganiban told GI & Hepatology News.

The goal of the authors was to bring global awareness to the recent changes in the pediatric MASLD landscape — especially in medication use — and to empower clinicians treating the disease, she explained.

The recommendations are based on a combination of the latest published evidence and clinical expertise from eight hepatologists/gastroenterologists and two physicians from the Obesity Medicine Association, Centennial, Colorado.

One of the major barriers to MASLD management in children is suboptimal screening resulting in underdiagnosis, said Panganiban. “Unfortunately, only up to 30% of children are being screened in their pediatrician’s office.”

The new guideline outlines the patient care process from screening, referral to a subspecialist, and workup; however, the primary focus is on treatment with medication options that were previously not available or underutilized, she said.

 

Successful and Sustainable Weight Loss

Adiposity and weight gain make MASLD worse, but weight reduction has been shown to improve the condition, the authors noted. Previous strategies for curbing MASLD in children with obesity have focused mainly on lifestyle changes, but with limited success.

Nevertheless, the authors recommend continuing physical activity and nutrition as treatments for MASLD in children, with a plan tailored specifically to the patient.

In addition, however, they suggest that anti-obesity medications started early in the disease may help reduce costs and improve future outcomes.

Although glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have not yet been studied specifically for pediatric MASLD, data from studies of pediatric obesity, diabetes, and other retrospective studies are encouraging, the authors wrote.

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for managing obesity in children and adolescents aged 12 years or older, they noted. And a recent phase 3a randomized trial showed that liraglutide, not yet approved for children younger than 12 years, led to a mean change in body mass index of 5.8% from baseline to 56 weeks in children aged 6-11 years with obesity.

GLP-1 RAs not only are effective for weight management but also improve other metabolic dysfunction indicators including cholesterol and blood pressure, which makes these medications an even more beneficial option for individuals with obesity and MASLD, Panganiban and colleagues wrote.

For example, a recent single-center study of 111 children with MASLD (mean age, 15 years) showed a significant improvement in alanine aminotransferase levels with the use of GLP-1 RAs, although body mass index and weight were unchanged.

Regaining weight after discontinuing GLP-1 RAs is the main barrier to their use for MASLD, the authors noted. In addition, GLP-1 RAs are contraindicated in some situations, such as in those with a history of serious hypersensitivity, and in patients with a personal or family history of either medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2 based on animal studies showing an association with the medications and thyroid C–cell tumors.

Other FDA-approved medication options for obesity in children include metformin, topiramate, and phentermine, as well as bupropion, lisdexamfetamine, and setmelanotide, the authors said.

Resmetirom, a thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist, which is another significant breakthrough in MASLD for adults, has not yet been tested or approved for pediatric use.

In addition to medications, metabolic bariatric surgery has shown effectiveness in children with obesity and/or MASLD by reducing liver fat and reversing fibrosis, as shown in the Teen-LABS study, the authors wrote. However, long-term data on fibrosis reversal are limited, and cost and access remain barriers.

 

More Research Needed

The joint expert review is intended as an educational tool that may require updates and should not be interpreted as rules for individual patient care, the authors cautioned. And physical activity and nutrition remain the primary treatment of MASLD and should be continued in conjunction with other treatment modalities, they emphasized.

Looking ahead, research is needed to develop accurate and reliable noninvasive biomarkers to diagnose and assess obesity treatment efficacy, Panganiban told GI & Hepatology News.

Also needed are multicenter randomized control trials in children with obesity involving different medications that have been successful in the treatment of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis/fibrosis in adults, such as GLP-1 RAs or resmetirom, she added.

 

Educating Clinicians on Early Identification

When obesity occurs in childhood, it starts a process of additional complications that arise in earlier ages in adults, said Saul J. Karpen, MD, chief scientific officer at the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, in an interview.“Given the epidemic of obesity, altered diets, and reduced physical activities during younger ages, it is not easy to identify which children are at greater risk of MASLD,” said Karpen.

“It requires insight from the care providers and often imaging, a blood test, or a referral to a pediatric hepatologist, and not every region has easy access to such expertise,” Karpen said.

The new review is important because it highlights the fact that obesity and its consequences are not limited to adulthood, and that educated clinicians are in a position to get an early start on treatment in children, Karpen noted.

The guideline received no outside funding. Panganiban and Karpen had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In addition to healthy weight reduction through lifestyle changes, experts recommend anti-obesity medications and bariatric surgery to help manage metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in children with obesity, according to a new joint perspective paper.

Pediatric MASLD is the number-one cause of chronic liver disease in children and the number-one reason for liver transplant listing in young adults aged 18-40 years, said corresponding author Jennifer A. Panganiban, MD, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

The paper, published in Obesity Pillars, represents “a call to action that has been long overdue,” Panganiban told GI & Hepatology News.

The goal of the authors was to bring global awareness to the recent changes in the pediatric MASLD landscape — especially in medication use — and to empower clinicians treating the disease, she explained.

The recommendations are based on a combination of the latest published evidence and clinical expertise from eight hepatologists/gastroenterologists and two physicians from the Obesity Medicine Association, Centennial, Colorado.

One of the major barriers to MASLD management in children is suboptimal screening resulting in underdiagnosis, said Panganiban. “Unfortunately, only up to 30% of children are being screened in their pediatrician’s office.”

The new guideline outlines the patient care process from screening, referral to a subspecialist, and workup; however, the primary focus is on treatment with medication options that were previously not available or underutilized, she said.

 

Successful and Sustainable Weight Loss

Adiposity and weight gain make MASLD worse, but weight reduction has been shown to improve the condition, the authors noted. Previous strategies for curbing MASLD in children with obesity have focused mainly on lifestyle changes, but with limited success.

Nevertheless, the authors recommend continuing physical activity and nutrition as treatments for MASLD in children, with a plan tailored specifically to the patient.

In addition, however, they suggest that anti-obesity medications started early in the disease may help reduce costs and improve future outcomes.

Although glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have not yet been studied specifically for pediatric MASLD, data from studies of pediatric obesity, diabetes, and other retrospective studies are encouraging, the authors wrote.

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for managing obesity in children and adolescents aged 12 years or older, they noted. And a recent phase 3a randomized trial showed that liraglutide, not yet approved for children younger than 12 years, led to a mean change in body mass index of 5.8% from baseline to 56 weeks in children aged 6-11 years with obesity.

GLP-1 RAs not only are effective for weight management but also improve other metabolic dysfunction indicators including cholesterol and blood pressure, which makes these medications an even more beneficial option for individuals with obesity and MASLD, Panganiban and colleagues wrote.

For example, a recent single-center study of 111 children with MASLD (mean age, 15 years) showed a significant improvement in alanine aminotransferase levels with the use of GLP-1 RAs, although body mass index and weight were unchanged.

Regaining weight after discontinuing GLP-1 RAs is the main barrier to their use for MASLD, the authors noted. In addition, GLP-1 RAs are contraindicated in some situations, such as in those with a history of serious hypersensitivity, and in patients with a personal or family history of either medullary thyroid carcinoma or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2 based on animal studies showing an association with the medications and thyroid C–cell tumors.

Other FDA-approved medication options for obesity in children include metformin, topiramate, and phentermine, as well as bupropion, lisdexamfetamine, and setmelanotide, the authors said.

Resmetirom, a thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist, which is another significant breakthrough in MASLD for adults, has not yet been tested or approved for pediatric use.

In addition to medications, metabolic bariatric surgery has shown effectiveness in children with obesity and/or MASLD by reducing liver fat and reversing fibrosis, as shown in the Teen-LABS study, the authors wrote. However, long-term data on fibrosis reversal are limited, and cost and access remain barriers.

 

More Research Needed

The joint expert review is intended as an educational tool that may require updates and should not be interpreted as rules for individual patient care, the authors cautioned. And physical activity and nutrition remain the primary treatment of MASLD and should be continued in conjunction with other treatment modalities, they emphasized.

Looking ahead, research is needed to develop accurate and reliable noninvasive biomarkers to diagnose and assess obesity treatment efficacy, Panganiban told GI & Hepatology News.

Also needed are multicenter randomized control trials in children with obesity involving different medications that have been successful in the treatment of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis/fibrosis in adults, such as GLP-1 RAs or resmetirom, she added.

 

Educating Clinicians on Early Identification

When obesity occurs in childhood, it starts a process of additional complications that arise in earlier ages in adults, said Saul J. Karpen, MD, chief scientific officer at the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, in an interview.“Given the epidemic of obesity, altered diets, and reduced physical activities during younger ages, it is not easy to identify which children are at greater risk of MASLD,” said Karpen.

“It requires insight from the care providers and often imaging, a blood test, or a referral to a pediatric hepatologist, and not every region has easy access to such expertise,” Karpen said.

The new review is important because it highlights the fact that obesity and its consequences are not limited to adulthood, and that educated clinicians are in a position to get an early start on treatment in children, Karpen noted.

The guideline received no outside funding. Panganiban and Karpen had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An AGA multidisciplinary panel has reached the conclusion that no recommendation can be made for or against the use of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC), the third most common cause of cancer mortality in the United States.

The systematic data review is a collaboration between AGA and The BMJ’s MAGIC Rapid Recommendations. The BMJ issued a separate recommendation against CADe shortly after the AGA guideline was published.

Led by Shahnaz S. Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and recently published in Gastroenterology, found only very low certainty of GRADE-based evidence for several critical long-term outcomes, both desirable and undesirable. These included the following: 11 fewer CRCs per 10,000 individuals and two fewer CRC deaths per 10,000 individuals, an increased burden of more intensive surveillance colonoscopies (635 more per 10,000 individuals), and cost and resource implications.

This technology did, however, yield an 8% (95% CI, 6-10) absolute increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and a 2% (95% CI, 0-4) increase in the detection rate of advanced adenomas and/or sessile serrated lesions. “How this translates into a reduction in CRC incidence or death is where we were uncertain,” Sultan said. “Our best effort at trying to translate the ADR and other endoscopy outcomes to CRC incidence and CRC death relied on the modeling study, which included a lot of assumptions, which also contributed to our overall lower certainty.”

The systematic and meta-analysis included 41 randomized controlled trials with more than 32,108 participants who underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy. This technology was associated with a higher polyp detection rate than standard colonoscopy: 56.1% vs 47.9% (relative risk [RR], 1.22, 95% CI, 1.15-1.28). It also had a higher ADR: 44.8% vs 37.4% (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.16-1.29).

But although CADe-assisted colonoscopy may increase ADR, it carries a risk for overdiagnosis, as most polyps detected during colonoscopy are diminutive (< 5 mm) and of low malignant potential, the panel noted. Approximately 25% of lesions are missed at colonoscopy. More than 15 million colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, but studies have demonstrated variable quality of colonoscopies across key quality indicators.

“Artificial intelligence [AI] is revolutionizing medicine and healthcare in the field of GI [gastroenterology], and CADe in colonoscopy has been brought to commercialization,” Sultan told GI & Hepatology News. “Unlike many areas of endoscopic research where we often have a finite number of clinical trial data, CADe-assisted colonoscopy intervention has been studied in over 44 randomized controlled trials and numerous nonrandomized, real-world studies. The question of whether or not to adopt this intervention at a health system or practice level is an important question that was prioritized to be addressed as guidance was needed.”

Commenting on the guideline but not involved in its formulation, Larry S. Kim, MD, MBA, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at South Denver Gastroenterology in Denver, Colorado, said his practice group has used the GI Genius AI system in its affiliated hospitals but has so far chosen not to implement the technology at its endoscopy centers. “At the hospital, our physicians have the ability to utilize the system for select patients or not at all,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

The fact that The BMJ reached a different conclusion based on the same data, evidence-grading system, and microsimulation, Kim added, “highlights the point that when evidence for benefit is uncertain, underlying values are critical.” In declining to make a recommendation, the AGA panel balanced the benefit of improved detection of potentially precancerous adenomas vs increased resource utilization in the face of unclear benefit. “With different priorities, other bodies could reasonably decide to recommend either for or against CADe.”

 

The Future

According to Sultan, gastroenterologists need a better understanding of patient values and preferences and the value placed on increased adenoma detection, which may also lead to more lifetime colonoscopies without reducing the risk for CRC. “We need better intermediate- and long-term data on the impact of adenoma detection on interval cancers and CRC incidence,” she said. “We need data on detection of polyps that are more clinically significant such as those 6-10 mm in size, as well as serrated sessile lesions. We also need to understand at the population or health system level what the impact is on resources, cost, and access.”

Ultimately, the living guideline underscores the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects and the limitations of current evidence to support a recommendation, but CADe has to improve as an iterative AI application with further validation and better training.

With the anticipated improvement in software accuracy as AI machine learning reads increasing numbers of images, Sultan added, “the next version of the software may perform better, especially for polyps that are more clinically significant or for flat sessile serrated polyps, which are harder to detect. We plan to revisit the question in the next year or two and potentially revise the guideline.”

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute with no funding from any outside agency or industry.

Sultan is supported by the US Food and Drug Administration. Co-authors Shazia Mehmood Siddique, Dennis L. Shung, and Benjamin Lebwohl are supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Theodore R. Levin is supported by the Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Applied Research Program. Cesare Hassan is a consultant for Fujifilm and Olympus. Peter S. Liang reported doing research work for Freenome and advisory board work for Guardant Health and Natera.

Kim is the AGA president-elect. He disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Short-term adherence to a palatable elemental diet (PED) significantly improved symptoms and the gut microbiota in adults with microbiome-driven gastrointestinal disorders, according to a new study.

“Elemental diets have long shown promise for treating gastrointestinal disorders like Crohn’s disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth), and IMO (intestinal methanogen overgrowth), but poor palatability has limited their use,” lead author Ali Rezaie, MD, medical director of the Gastrointestinal (GI) Motility Program and director of Bioinformatics at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told GI & Hepatology News.

Elemental diets are specialized formulas tailored to meet an individual’s specific nutritional needs and daily requirements for vitamins, minerals, fat, free amino acids, and carbohydrates.

In SIBO and IMO specifically, only about half the patients respond to antibiotics, and many require repeat treatments, which underscores the need for effective nonantibiotic alternatives, said Rezaie. “This is the first prospective trial using a PED, aiming to make this approach both viable and accessible for patients,” he noted.

 

Assessing a Novel Diet in IMO and SIBO

In the study, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rezaie and colleagues enrolled 30 adults with IMO (40%), SIBO (20%), or both (40%). The mean participant age was 45 years, and 63% were women.

All participants completed 2 weeks of a PED, transitioned to 2-3 days of a bland diet, and then resumed their regular diets for 2 weeks.

The diet consisted of multiple 300-calorie packets, adjusted for individual caloric needs. Participants could consume additional packets for hunger but were prohibited from eating other foods. There was no restriction on water intake.

The primary endpoint was changes in stool microbiome after the PED and reintroduction of regular food. Secondary endpoints included lactose breath test normalization to determine bacterial overgrowth in the gut, symptom response, and adverse events.

Researchers collected 29 stool samples at baseline, 27 post-PED, and 27 at study conclusion (2 weeks post-diet).

 

Key Outcomes

Although the stool samples’ alpha diversity decreased after the PED, the difference was not statistically significant at the end of the study. However, 30 bacterial families showed significant differences in relative abundance post-PED.

Daily symptom severity improved significantly during the second week of the diet compared with baseline, with reduction in abdominal discomfort, bloating, distention, constipation, and flatulence. Further significant improvements in measures such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, urgency, and brain fog were observed after reintroducing regular food.

“We observed 73% breath test normalization and 83% global symptom relief — with 100% adherence and tolerance to 2 weeks of exclusive PED,” Rezaie told GI & Hepatology News. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, he added.

Lactose breath test normalization rates post-PED were 58% in patients with IMO, 100% in patients with SIBO, and 75% in those with both conditions.

The extent of patient response to PED was notable, given that 83% had failed prior treatments, Rezaie said.

“While we expected benefit based on palatability improvements and prior retrospective data, the rapid reduction in methane and hydrogen gas — and the sustained microbiome modulation even after reintroducing a regular diet — exceeded expectations,” he said. A significant reduction in visceral fat was another novel finding.

“This study reinforces the power of diet as a therapeutic tool,” Rezaie said, adding that the results show that elemental diets can be palatable, thereby improving patient adherence, tolerance, and, eventually, effectiveness. This is particularly valuable for patients with SIBO and IMO who do not tolerate or respond to antibiotics, prefer nonpharmacologic options, or experience recurrent symptoms after antibiotic treatment.

 

Limitations and Next Steps

Study limitations included the lack of a placebo group with a sham diet, the short follow-up after reintroducing a regular diet, and the inability to assess microbial gene function.

However, the results support the safety, tolerance, and benefit of a PED in patients with IMO/SIBO. Personalized dietary interventions that support the growth of beneficial bacteria may be an effective approach to treating these disorders, Rezaie and colleagues noted in their publication.

Although the current study is a promising first step, longer-term studies are needed to evaluate the durability of microbiome and symptom improvements, Rezaie said.

 

Making the Most of Microbiome Manipulation

Elemental diets may help modulate the gut microbiome while reducing immune activation, making them attractive for microbiome-targeted gastrointestinal therapies, Jatin Roper, MD, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News.

“Antibiotics are only effective in half of SIBO cases and often require retreatment, so better therapies are needed,” said Roper, who was not affiliated with the study. He added that its findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that a PED can be both safe and effective in patients with SIBO.

Roper noted the 83% symptom improvement as the study’s most unexpected and encouraging finding, as it represents a substantial improvement compared with standard antibiotic therapy. “It is also surprising that the tolerance rate of the elemental diet in this study was 100%,” he said.

However, diet palatability remains a major barrier in real-world practice.

“Adherence rates are likely to be far lower than in trials in which patients are closely monitored, and this challenge will not be easily overcome,” he added.

The study’s limitations, including the lack of metagenomic analysis and a placebo group, are important to address in future research, Roper said. In particular, controlled trials of elemental diets are needed to determine whether microbiome changes are directly responsible for symptom improvement.

The study was supported in part by Good LFE and the John and Geraldine Cusenza Foundation. Rezaie disclosed serving as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health and having equity in Dieta Health, Gemelli Biotech, and Good LFE. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Short-term adherence to a palatable elemental diet (PED) significantly improved symptoms and the gut microbiota in adults with microbiome-driven gastrointestinal disorders, according to a new study.

“Elemental diets have long shown promise for treating gastrointestinal disorders like Crohn’s disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth), and IMO (intestinal methanogen overgrowth), but poor palatability has limited their use,” lead author Ali Rezaie, MD, medical director of the Gastrointestinal (GI) Motility Program and director of Bioinformatics at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told GI & Hepatology News.

Elemental diets are specialized formulas tailored to meet an individual’s specific nutritional needs and daily requirements for vitamins, minerals, fat, free amino acids, and carbohydrates.

In SIBO and IMO specifically, only about half the patients respond to antibiotics, and many require repeat treatments, which underscores the need for effective nonantibiotic alternatives, said Rezaie. “This is the first prospective trial using a PED, aiming to make this approach both viable and accessible for patients,” he noted.

 

Assessing a Novel Diet in IMO and SIBO

In the study, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rezaie and colleagues enrolled 30 adults with IMO (40%), SIBO (20%), or both (40%). The mean participant age was 45 years, and 63% were women.

All participants completed 2 weeks of a PED, transitioned to 2-3 days of a bland diet, and then resumed their regular diets for 2 weeks.

The diet consisted of multiple 300-calorie packets, adjusted for individual caloric needs. Participants could consume additional packets for hunger but were prohibited from eating other foods. There was no restriction on water intake.

The primary endpoint was changes in stool microbiome after the PED and reintroduction of regular food. Secondary endpoints included lactose breath test normalization to determine bacterial overgrowth in the gut, symptom response, and adverse events.

Researchers collected 29 stool samples at baseline, 27 post-PED, and 27 at study conclusion (2 weeks post-diet).

 

Key Outcomes

Although the stool samples’ alpha diversity decreased after the PED, the difference was not statistically significant at the end of the study. However, 30 bacterial families showed significant differences in relative abundance post-PED.

Daily symptom severity improved significantly during the second week of the diet compared with baseline, with reduction in abdominal discomfort, bloating, distention, constipation, and flatulence. Further significant improvements in measures such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, urgency, and brain fog were observed after reintroducing regular food.

“We observed 73% breath test normalization and 83% global symptom relief — with 100% adherence and tolerance to 2 weeks of exclusive PED,” Rezaie told GI & Hepatology News. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, he added.

Lactose breath test normalization rates post-PED were 58% in patients with IMO, 100% in patients with SIBO, and 75% in those with both conditions.

The extent of patient response to PED was notable, given that 83% had failed prior treatments, Rezaie said.

“While we expected benefit based on palatability improvements and prior retrospective data, the rapid reduction in methane and hydrogen gas — and the sustained microbiome modulation even after reintroducing a regular diet — exceeded expectations,” he said. A significant reduction in visceral fat was another novel finding.

“This study reinforces the power of diet as a therapeutic tool,” Rezaie said, adding that the results show that elemental diets can be palatable, thereby improving patient adherence, tolerance, and, eventually, effectiveness. This is particularly valuable for patients with SIBO and IMO who do not tolerate or respond to antibiotics, prefer nonpharmacologic options, or experience recurrent symptoms after antibiotic treatment.

 

Limitations and Next Steps

Study limitations included the lack of a placebo group with a sham diet, the short follow-up after reintroducing a regular diet, and the inability to assess microbial gene function.

However, the results support the safety, tolerance, and benefit of a PED in patients with IMO/SIBO. Personalized dietary interventions that support the growth of beneficial bacteria may be an effective approach to treating these disorders, Rezaie and colleagues noted in their publication.

Although the current study is a promising first step, longer-term studies are needed to evaluate the durability of microbiome and symptom improvements, Rezaie said.

 

Making the Most of Microbiome Manipulation

Elemental diets may help modulate the gut microbiome while reducing immune activation, making them attractive for microbiome-targeted gastrointestinal therapies, Jatin Roper, MD, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News.

“Antibiotics are only effective in half of SIBO cases and often require retreatment, so better therapies are needed,” said Roper, who was not affiliated with the study. He added that its findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that a PED can be both safe and effective in patients with SIBO.

Roper noted the 83% symptom improvement as the study’s most unexpected and encouraging finding, as it represents a substantial improvement compared with standard antibiotic therapy. “It is also surprising that the tolerance rate of the elemental diet in this study was 100%,” he said.

However, diet palatability remains a major barrier in real-world practice.

“Adherence rates are likely to be far lower than in trials in which patients are closely monitored, and this challenge will not be easily overcome,” he added.

The study’s limitations, including the lack of metagenomic analysis and a placebo group, are important to address in future research, Roper said. In particular, controlled trials of elemental diets are needed to determine whether microbiome changes are directly responsible for symptom improvement.

The study was supported in part by Good LFE and the John and Geraldine Cusenza Foundation. Rezaie disclosed serving as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health and having equity in Dieta Health, Gemelli Biotech, and Good LFE. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Short-term adherence to a palatable elemental diet (PED) significantly improved symptoms and the gut microbiota in adults with microbiome-driven gastrointestinal disorders, according to a new study.

“Elemental diets have long shown promise for treating gastrointestinal disorders like Crohn’s disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth), and IMO (intestinal methanogen overgrowth), but poor palatability has limited their use,” lead author Ali Rezaie, MD, medical director of the Gastrointestinal (GI) Motility Program and director of Bioinformatics at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told GI & Hepatology News.

Elemental diets are specialized formulas tailored to meet an individual’s specific nutritional needs and daily requirements for vitamins, minerals, fat, free amino acids, and carbohydrates.

In SIBO and IMO specifically, only about half the patients respond to antibiotics, and many require repeat treatments, which underscores the need for effective nonantibiotic alternatives, said Rezaie. “This is the first prospective trial using a PED, aiming to make this approach both viable and accessible for patients,” he noted.

 

Assessing a Novel Diet in IMO and SIBO

In the study, which was recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rezaie and colleagues enrolled 30 adults with IMO (40%), SIBO (20%), or both (40%). The mean participant age was 45 years, and 63% were women.

All participants completed 2 weeks of a PED, transitioned to 2-3 days of a bland diet, and then resumed their regular diets for 2 weeks.

The diet consisted of multiple 300-calorie packets, adjusted for individual caloric needs. Participants could consume additional packets for hunger but were prohibited from eating other foods. There was no restriction on water intake.

The primary endpoint was changes in stool microbiome after the PED and reintroduction of regular food. Secondary endpoints included lactose breath test normalization to determine bacterial overgrowth in the gut, symptom response, and adverse events.

Researchers collected 29 stool samples at baseline, 27 post-PED, and 27 at study conclusion (2 weeks post-diet).

 

Key Outcomes

Although the stool samples’ alpha diversity decreased after the PED, the difference was not statistically significant at the end of the study. However, 30 bacterial families showed significant differences in relative abundance post-PED.

Daily symptom severity improved significantly during the second week of the diet compared with baseline, with reduction in abdominal discomfort, bloating, distention, constipation, and flatulence. Further significant improvements in measures such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, urgency, and brain fog were observed after reintroducing regular food.

“We observed 73% breath test normalization and 83% global symptom relief — with 100% adherence and tolerance to 2 weeks of exclusive PED,” Rezaie told GI & Hepatology News. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, he added.

Lactose breath test normalization rates post-PED were 58% in patients with IMO, 100% in patients with SIBO, and 75% in those with both conditions.

The extent of patient response to PED was notable, given that 83% had failed prior treatments, Rezaie said.

“While we expected benefit based on palatability improvements and prior retrospective data, the rapid reduction in methane and hydrogen gas — and the sustained microbiome modulation even after reintroducing a regular diet — exceeded expectations,” he said. A significant reduction in visceral fat was another novel finding.

“This study reinforces the power of diet as a therapeutic tool,” Rezaie said, adding that the results show that elemental diets can be palatable, thereby improving patient adherence, tolerance, and, eventually, effectiveness. This is particularly valuable for patients with SIBO and IMO who do not tolerate or respond to antibiotics, prefer nonpharmacologic options, or experience recurrent symptoms after antibiotic treatment.

 

Limitations and Next Steps

Study limitations included the lack of a placebo group with a sham diet, the short follow-up after reintroducing a regular diet, and the inability to assess microbial gene function.

However, the results support the safety, tolerance, and benefit of a PED in patients with IMO/SIBO. Personalized dietary interventions that support the growth of beneficial bacteria may be an effective approach to treating these disorders, Rezaie and colleagues noted in their publication.

Although the current study is a promising first step, longer-term studies are needed to evaluate the durability of microbiome and symptom improvements, Rezaie said.

 

Making the Most of Microbiome Manipulation

Elemental diets may help modulate the gut microbiome while reducing immune activation, making them attractive for microbiome-targeted gastrointestinal therapies, Jatin Roper, MD, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News.

“Antibiotics are only effective in half of SIBO cases and often require retreatment, so better therapies are needed,” said Roper, who was not affiliated with the study. He added that its findings confirmed the researchers’ hypothesis that a PED can be both safe and effective in patients with SIBO.

Roper noted the 83% symptom improvement as the study’s most unexpected and encouraging finding, as it represents a substantial improvement compared with standard antibiotic therapy. “It is also surprising that the tolerance rate of the elemental diet in this study was 100%,” he said.

However, diet palatability remains a major barrier in real-world practice.

“Adherence rates are likely to be far lower than in trials in which patients are closely monitored, and this challenge will not be easily overcome,” he added.

The study’s limitations, including the lack of metagenomic analysis and a placebo group, are important to address in future research, Roper said. In particular, controlled trials of elemental diets are needed to determine whether microbiome changes are directly responsible for symptom improvement.

The study was supported in part by Good LFE and the John and Geraldine Cusenza Foundation. Rezaie disclosed serving as a consultant/speaker for Bausch Health and having equity in Dieta Health, Gemelli Biotech, and Good LFE. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Patient navigation was more effective than usual care in increasing follow-up colonoscopy rates after an abnormal stool test result, a new randomized controlled trial revealed.

The intervention led to a significant 13-point increase in follow-up colonoscopy completion at 1 year, compared with usual care (55.1% vs 42.1%), according the study, which was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

“Patients with an abnormal fecal test results have about a 1 in 20 chance of having colorectal cancer found, and many more will be found to have advanced adenomas that can be removed to prevent cancer,” Gloria Coronado, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said in an interview.

“It is critical that these patients get a follow-up colonoscopy,” she said. “Patient navigation can accomplish this goal.”

 

‘Highly Effective’ Intervention

Researchers compared the effectiveness of a patient navigation program with that of usual care outreach in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test. They also developed a risk-prediction model that calculated a patient’s probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy without navigation to determine if the addition of this intervention had a greater impact on those determined to be less likely to follow through.

The study included 967 patients from a community health center in Washington State who received an abnormal fecal test result within the prior month. The mean age of participants was 61 years, approximately 45% were women and 77% were White, and 18% preferred a Spanish-language intervention. In total, 479 patients received the intervention and 488 received usual care.

The intervention was delivered by a patient navigator who mailed introductory letters, sent text messages, and made live phone calls. In the calls, the navigators addressed the topics of barrier assessment and resolution, bowel preparation instruction and reminders, colonoscopy check-in, and understanding colonoscopy results and retesting intervals.

Patients in the usual-care group were contacted by a referral coordinator to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy appointment. If they couldn’t be reached initially, up to two follow-up attempts were made at 30 and 45 days after the referral date.

Patient navigation resulted in a significant 13% increase in follow-up, and those in this group completed a colonoscopy 27 days sooner than those in the usual care group (mean, 229 days vs 256 days).

Contrary to the authors’ expectation, the effectiveness of the intervention did not vary by patients’ predicted likelihood of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation.

Notably, 20.3% of patients were unreachable or lost to follow-up, and 29.7% did not receive navigation. Among the 479 patients assigned to navigation, 79 (16.5%) declined participation and 56 (11.7%) were never reached.

The study was primarily conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created additional systemic and individual barriers to completing colonoscopies.

Nevertheless, the authors wrote, “our findings suggest that patient navigation is highly effective for patients eligible for colonoscopy.”

“Most patients who were reached were contacted with six or fewer phone attempts,” Coronado noted. “Further efforts are needed to determine how to reach and motivate patients [who did not participate] to get a follow-up colonoscopy.”

Coronado and colleagues are exploring ways to leverage artificial intelligence and virtual approaches to augment patient navigation programs — for example, by using a virtual navigator or low-cost automated tools to provide education to build patient confidence in getting a colonoscopy.

 

‘A Promising Tool’

“Colonoscopy completion after positive stool-based testing is critical to mitigating the impact of colon cancer,” commented Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology & hepatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “While prior studies assessing navigation have demonstrated improvements, none were as large enrollment-wise or as generalizable as the current study.”

That said, Bhuta said in an interview that the study could have provided more detail about coordination and communication with local gastrointestinal practices.

“Local ordering and prescribing practices vary and can significantly impact compliance rates. Were colonoscopies completed via an open access pathway or were the patients required to see a gastroenterologist first? How long was the average wait time for colonoscopy once scheduled? What were the local policies on requiring an escort after the procedure?”

He also noted that some aspects of the study — such as access to reduced-cost specialty care and free ride-share services — may limit generalizable to settings without such resources.

He added: “Although patient navigators for cancer treatment have mandated reimbursement, there is no current reimbursement for navigators for abnormal screening tests, another barrier to wide-spread implementation.”

Bhuta said that the dropout rate in the study mirrors that of his own real-world practice, which serves a high-risk, low-resource community. “I would specifically like to see research that provides behavioral insights on why patients respond positively to navigation — whether it is due to reminders, emotional support, or logistical assistance. Is it systemic barriers or patient disinterest or both that drives noncompliance?”

Despite these uncertainties and the need to refine implementation logistics, Bhuta concluded, “this strategy is a promising tool to reduce disparities and improve colorectal cancer outcomes. Clinicians should advocate for or implement structured follow-up systems, particularly in high-risk populations.”

The study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute. Coronado received a grant/contract from Guardant Health. Bhuta declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient navigation was more effective than usual care in increasing follow-up colonoscopy rates after an abnormal stool test result, a new randomized controlled trial revealed.

The intervention led to a significant 13-point increase in follow-up colonoscopy completion at 1 year, compared with usual care (55.1% vs 42.1%), according the study, which was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

“Patients with an abnormal fecal test results have about a 1 in 20 chance of having colorectal cancer found, and many more will be found to have advanced adenomas that can be removed to prevent cancer,” Gloria Coronado, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said in an interview.

“It is critical that these patients get a follow-up colonoscopy,” she said. “Patient navigation can accomplish this goal.”

 

‘Highly Effective’ Intervention

Researchers compared the effectiveness of a patient navigation program with that of usual care outreach in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test. They also developed a risk-prediction model that calculated a patient’s probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy without navigation to determine if the addition of this intervention had a greater impact on those determined to be less likely to follow through.

The study included 967 patients from a community health center in Washington State who received an abnormal fecal test result within the prior month. The mean age of participants was 61 years, approximately 45% were women and 77% were White, and 18% preferred a Spanish-language intervention. In total, 479 patients received the intervention and 488 received usual care.

The intervention was delivered by a patient navigator who mailed introductory letters, sent text messages, and made live phone calls. In the calls, the navigators addressed the topics of barrier assessment and resolution, bowel preparation instruction and reminders, colonoscopy check-in, and understanding colonoscopy results and retesting intervals.

Patients in the usual-care group were contacted by a referral coordinator to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy appointment. If they couldn’t be reached initially, up to two follow-up attempts were made at 30 and 45 days after the referral date.

Patient navigation resulted in a significant 13% increase in follow-up, and those in this group completed a colonoscopy 27 days sooner than those in the usual care group (mean, 229 days vs 256 days).

Contrary to the authors’ expectation, the effectiveness of the intervention did not vary by patients’ predicted likelihood of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation.

Notably, 20.3% of patients were unreachable or lost to follow-up, and 29.7% did not receive navigation. Among the 479 patients assigned to navigation, 79 (16.5%) declined participation and 56 (11.7%) were never reached.

The study was primarily conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created additional systemic and individual barriers to completing colonoscopies.

Nevertheless, the authors wrote, “our findings suggest that patient navigation is highly effective for patients eligible for colonoscopy.”

“Most patients who were reached were contacted with six or fewer phone attempts,” Coronado noted. “Further efforts are needed to determine how to reach and motivate patients [who did not participate] to get a follow-up colonoscopy.”

Coronado and colleagues are exploring ways to leverage artificial intelligence and virtual approaches to augment patient navigation programs — for example, by using a virtual navigator or low-cost automated tools to provide education to build patient confidence in getting a colonoscopy.

 

‘A Promising Tool’

“Colonoscopy completion after positive stool-based testing is critical to mitigating the impact of colon cancer,” commented Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology & hepatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “While prior studies assessing navigation have demonstrated improvements, none were as large enrollment-wise or as generalizable as the current study.”

That said, Bhuta said in an interview that the study could have provided more detail about coordination and communication with local gastrointestinal practices.

“Local ordering and prescribing practices vary and can significantly impact compliance rates. Were colonoscopies completed via an open access pathway or were the patients required to see a gastroenterologist first? How long was the average wait time for colonoscopy once scheduled? What were the local policies on requiring an escort after the procedure?”

He also noted that some aspects of the study — such as access to reduced-cost specialty care and free ride-share services — may limit generalizable to settings without such resources.

He added: “Although patient navigators for cancer treatment have mandated reimbursement, there is no current reimbursement for navigators for abnormal screening tests, another barrier to wide-spread implementation.”

Bhuta said that the dropout rate in the study mirrors that of his own real-world practice, which serves a high-risk, low-resource community. “I would specifically like to see research that provides behavioral insights on why patients respond positively to navigation — whether it is due to reminders, emotional support, or logistical assistance. Is it systemic barriers or patient disinterest or both that drives noncompliance?”

Despite these uncertainties and the need to refine implementation logistics, Bhuta concluded, “this strategy is a promising tool to reduce disparities and improve colorectal cancer outcomes. Clinicians should advocate for or implement structured follow-up systems, particularly in high-risk populations.”

The study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute. Coronado received a grant/contract from Guardant Health. Bhuta declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patient navigation was more effective than usual care in increasing follow-up colonoscopy rates after an abnormal stool test result, a new randomized controlled trial revealed.

The intervention led to a significant 13-point increase in follow-up colonoscopy completion at 1 year, compared with usual care (55.1% vs 42.1%), according the study, which was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

“Patients with an abnormal fecal test results have about a 1 in 20 chance of having colorectal cancer found, and many more will be found to have advanced adenomas that can be removed to prevent cancer,” Gloria Coronado, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, and University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, said in an interview.

“It is critical that these patients get a follow-up colonoscopy,” she said. “Patient navigation can accomplish this goal.”

 

‘Highly Effective’ Intervention

Researchers compared the effectiveness of a patient navigation program with that of usual care outreach in increasing follow-up colonoscopy completion after an abnormal stool test. They also developed a risk-prediction model that calculated a patient’s probability of obtaining a follow-up colonoscopy without navigation to determine if the addition of this intervention had a greater impact on those determined to be less likely to follow through.

The study included 967 patients from a community health center in Washington State who received an abnormal fecal test result within the prior month. The mean age of participants was 61 years, approximately 45% were women and 77% were White, and 18% preferred a Spanish-language intervention. In total, 479 patients received the intervention and 488 received usual care.

The intervention was delivered by a patient navigator who mailed introductory letters, sent text messages, and made live phone calls. In the calls, the navigators addressed the topics of barrier assessment and resolution, bowel preparation instruction and reminders, colonoscopy check-in, and understanding colonoscopy results and retesting intervals.

Patients in the usual-care group were contacted by a referral coordinator to schedule a follow-up colonoscopy appointment. If they couldn’t be reached initially, up to two follow-up attempts were made at 30 and 45 days after the referral date.

Patient navigation resulted in a significant 13% increase in follow-up, and those in this group completed a colonoscopy 27 days sooner than those in the usual care group (mean, 229 days vs 256 days).

Contrary to the authors’ expectation, the effectiveness of the intervention did not vary by patients’ predicted likelihood of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation.

Notably, 20.3% of patients were unreachable or lost to follow-up, and 29.7% did not receive navigation. Among the 479 patients assigned to navigation, 79 (16.5%) declined participation and 56 (11.7%) were never reached.

The study was primarily conducted during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created additional systemic and individual barriers to completing colonoscopies.

Nevertheless, the authors wrote, “our findings suggest that patient navigation is highly effective for patients eligible for colonoscopy.”

“Most patients who were reached were contacted with six or fewer phone attempts,” Coronado noted. “Further efforts are needed to determine how to reach and motivate patients [who did not participate] to get a follow-up colonoscopy.”

Coronado and colleagues are exploring ways to leverage artificial intelligence and virtual approaches to augment patient navigation programs — for example, by using a virtual navigator or low-cost automated tools to provide education to build patient confidence in getting a colonoscopy.

 

‘A Promising Tool’

“Colonoscopy completion after positive stool-based testing is critical to mitigating the impact of colon cancer,” commented Rajiv Bhuta, MD, assistant professor of clinical gastroenterology & hepatology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “While prior studies assessing navigation have demonstrated improvements, none were as large enrollment-wise or as generalizable as the current study.”

That said, Bhuta said in an interview that the study could have provided more detail about coordination and communication with local gastrointestinal practices.

“Local ordering and prescribing practices vary and can significantly impact compliance rates. Were colonoscopies completed via an open access pathway or were the patients required to see a gastroenterologist first? How long was the average wait time for colonoscopy once scheduled? What were the local policies on requiring an escort after the procedure?”

He also noted that some aspects of the study — such as access to reduced-cost specialty care and free ride-share services — may limit generalizable to settings without such resources.

He added: “Although patient navigators for cancer treatment have mandated reimbursement, there is no current reimbursement for navigators for abnormal screening tests, another barrier to wide-spread implementation.”

Bhuta said that the dropout rate in the study mirrors that of his own real-world practice, which serves a high-risk, low-resource community. “I would specifically like to see research that provides behavioral insights on why patients respond positively to navigation — whether it is due to reminders, emotional support, or logistical assistance. Is it systemic barriers or patient disinterest or both that drives noncompliance?”

Despite these uncertainties and the need to refine implementation logistics, Bhuta concluded, “this strategy is a promising tool to reduce disparities and improve colorectal cancer outcomes. Clinicians should advocate for or implement structured follow-up systems, particularly in high-risk populations.”

The study was funded by the US National Cancer Institute. Coronado received a grant/contract from Guardant Health. Bhuta declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intermittent fasting (IMF) with behavioral support may be more effective and better tolerated by patients than standard daily caloric restriction (DCR) in weight-loss programs, a randomized study found.

A 4:3 IMF program produced modestly superior weight loss than DCR of 2.89 kg over 12 months in the context of a guidelines-based, high-intensity, comprehensive behavioral weight loss program, according to Danielle M. Ostendorf, PhD, MS, co–lead author and an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Victoria Catenacci, MD, study principal investigator, co–lead author, and an associate professor located at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

The study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, found that objectively measured percentage caloric restriction was greater in the 4:3 IMF group, whereas there was no between-group difference in change in total moderate to vigorous physical activity, suggesting that differences in weight loss may have been caused by greater adherence to 4:3 IMF. The 4:3 IMF program was well tolerated and attrition was lower in this group: 19% for IMF group vs 30% for DCR group.

The authors noted that alternative patterns for restricting dietary energy intake are gaining attention owing to the difficulty of adhering to a reduced-calorie diet daily, with most adults who lose weight through DCR showing significant weight regain a year later.

According to Ostendorf and Catenacci, fasting strategies “come in two different flavors and oftentimes get confused in the lay press and by patients and researchers. And there is a difference between IMF and time-restricted eating (TRE),” they said in an interview. “TRE involves limiting the daily window of food intake to 8-10 hours or less on most days of the week — for example, 16:8 or 14:10 strategies. TRE is done every day, consistently and involves eating in the predefined window, and fasting outside of that window.” 

IMF is a more periodic and significant fast and involves cycling between complete or near-complete (> 75%) energy restriction on fast days and ad libitum energy intake on nonfast days.

An appealing feature of IMF is that dieters do not have to focus on counting calories and restricting intake every day as they do with DCR, the authors wrote. Furthermore, the periodic nature of fasting is simpler and may mitigate the constant hunger associated with DCR.

Some said the diet was dreadful, but many said it was the easiest diet they had ever been on. “But it did take time for people to adjust to this strategy,” Catenacci said. “It was reassuring to see no evidence of increased binge-eating behaviors.”

Although objectively measured adherence to the targeted energy deficit (percentage caloric restriction from baseline) was below the target of 34.3% in both groups, the 4:3 IMF group showed greater percentage caloric restriction over 12 months. This suggests that, on average, the 4:3 IMF group may be more sustainable over a year than the DCR group. However, weight loss varied in both groups. Future studies should evaluate biological and behavioral predictors of response to both 4:3 IMF and DCR groups in order to personalize recommendations for weight loss.

 

Study Details

The investigators randomized 165 patients at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with a mean age of 42 years (18-60), a mean baseline weight of 97.4 kg, and a mean baseline body mass index (BMI) of 34.1 to IMF (n = 84) or DCR (n = 81). Of these, 74% were women and 86% were White individuals, and 125 (76%) completed the trial.

The 4:3 IMF group restricted energy intake by 80% on 3 nonconsecutive fast days per week, with ad libitum intake on the other 4 days (4:3 IMF). The 80% calorie reduction fasting corresponded to about 400-600 kcals/d for women and 500-700 kcals/d for men.

“Participants were only required to count calories on their fast days, which is part of the appeal,” Ostendorf said. Although permitted to eat what they wanted on nonfast days, participants were encouraged to make healthy food choices and consume healthy portion sizes.

For its part, the DCR group reduced daily energy intake by 34% to match the weekly energy deficit of 4:3 IMF.

Both groups participated in a high-intensity comprehensive weight loss program with group-based behavioral support and a recommended increase in moderate-intensity physical activity to 300 min/wk.

On the primary endpoint, the 4:3 IMF group showed a weight loss of 7.7 kg (95% CI, –9.6 to –5.9 kg) compared with 4.8 kg (95% CI, –6.8 to –2.8 kg, P =.040) in the DCR group at 12 months. The percentage change in body weight from baseline was –7.6% (95% CI, –9.5% to –5.7%) in the 4:3 IMF group and –5% (95% CI, –6.9% to –3.1%) in the DCR group.

At 12 months, 58% (n = 50) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 5% vs 47% (n = 27) of those in the DCR group. In addition, 38% (n = 26) of participants in the 4:3 IMF group achieved weight loss of at least 10% at 12 months vs 16% (n = 9) of those in the DCR group. Changes in body composition, BMI, and waist circumference also tended to favor the 4:3 IMF group.

On other 12-month measures, point estimates of change in systolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglyceride level, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, fasting glucose level, and hemoglobin A1c level favored 4:3 IMF. Point estimates of change in diastolic blood pressure and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level favored DCR.

Currently lacking, the authors said, are data on safety in children and older adults, and adults affected by a long list of conditions: Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease (stage 4 or 5), cancer, and eating disorders. Also, people of normal weight or only mild overweight, and pregnant or lactating women. “There have been concerns about IMF causing eating disorders, so we did not include people with eating disorders in our study,” Ostendorf and Catenacci said.

Offering an outside perspective on the findings, James O. Hill, PhD, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center and a professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham believes IMF is a viable option for people trying to lose weight and has prescribed this approach for some in his practice. “But there is no one strategy that works for everyone,” he said in an interview. “I recommend IMF as a science-based strategy that can be effective for some people, and I think it should be on the list of science-based tools that people can consider using.” But as it won’t work for everyone, “we need to consider both metabolic success and behavioral success. In other words, would it be more effective if people could do it and how easy or hard is it for people to do?”

Audra Wilson, MS, RD, a bariatric dietitian at Northwestern Medicine Delnor Hospital in Geneva, Illinois, who was not involved in the study, expressed more reservations. “We do not specifically recommend intermittent fasting at Northwestern Medicine. There is no set protocol for this diet, and it can vary in ways that can limit nutrition to the point where we are not meeting needs on a regular basis,” she said in an interview.

Moreover, this study did not specify exact nutritional recommendations for participants but merely reduced overall caloric intake. “Although intermittent fasting may be helpful to some, in my nearly 10 years of experience I have not seen it be effective for many and especially not long term,” Wilson added.

Concerningly, IMF can foster disordered eating patterns of restriction followed by binging. “Although a balanced diet is more difficult to achieve, guidance from professionals like dietitians can give patients the tools to achieve balance, meet all nutrient needs, achieve satiety, and maybe most importantly, have a better relationship with food,” she said.

As for the influence of metabolic factors that may be associated with better weight loss, Ostendorf said, “be on the lookout for future publications in this area. We are analyzing data around changes in energy expenditure and changes in hunger-related hormones, among others.” A colleague is collecting biological samples to study genetics in this context. “However, in general, it appeared that the difference in weight loss was due to a greater caloric deficit in the 4:3 IMF group.”

Ostendorf and Catenacci are currently conducting a pilot study testing 4:3 IMF in breast cancer survivors. “We think this is a promising strategy for weight loss in breast cancer survivors who struggle with overweight/obesity in addition to their cancer diagnosis,” Ostendorf said.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Ostendorf, Catenacci, Hill, and Wilson disclosed no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit may help identify and predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, and even distinguish between inflammatory and purely symptomatic episodes, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.

 

“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”

Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD. 

Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.

Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.

Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.

Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.

These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.

In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.

“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.

 

Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit may help identify and predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, and even distinguish between inflammatory and purely symptomatic episodes, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.

 

“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”

Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD. 

Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.

Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.

Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.

Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.

These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.

In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.

“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.

 

Wearable devices like the Apple Watch and Fitbit may help identify and predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flares, and even distinguish between inflammatory and purely symptomatic episodes, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that widely used consumer wearables could support long-term monitoring of IBD and other chronic inflammatory conditions, lead author Robert P. Hirten, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues reported.

 

“Wearable devices are an increasingly accepted tool for monitoring health and disease,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “They are frequently used in non–inflammatory-based diseases for remote patient monitoring, allowing individuals to be monitored outside of the clinical setting, which has resulted in improved outcomes in multiple disease states.”

Progress has been slower for inflammatory conditions, the investigators noted, despite interest from both providers and patients. Prior studies have explored activity and sleep tracking, or sweat-based biomarkers, as potential tools for monitoring IBD. 

Hirten and colleagues took a novel approach, focusing on physiologic changes driven by autonomic nervous system dysfunction — a hallmark of chronic inflammation. Conditions like IBD are associated with reduced parasympathetic activity and increased sympathetic tone, which in turn affect heart rate and heart rate variability. Heart rate tends to rise during flares, while heart rate variability decreases.

Their prospective cohort study included 309 adults with Crohn’s disease (n = 196) or ulcerative colitis (n = 113). Participants used their own or a study-provided Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Oura Ring to passively collect physiological data, including heart rate, resting heart rate, heart rate variability, and step count. A subset of Apple Watch users also contributed oxygen saturation data.

Participants also completed daily symptom surveys using a custom smartphone app and reported laboratory values such as C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fecal calprotectin, as part of routine care. These data were used to identify symptomatic and inflammatory flare periods.

Over a mean follow-up of about 7 months, the physiological data consistently distinguished both types of flares from periods of remission. Heart rate variability dropped significantly during flares, while heart rate and resting heart rate increased. Step counts decreased during inflammatory flares but not during symptom-only flares. Oxygen saturation stayed mostly the same, except for a slight drop seen in participants with Crohn’s disease.

These physiological changes could be detected as early as 7 weeks before a flare. Predictive models that combined multiple metrics — heart rate variability, heart rate, resting heart rate, and step count — were highly accurate, with F1 scores as high as 0.90 for predicting inflammatory flares and 0.83 for predicting symptomatic flares.

In addition, wearable data helped differentiate between flares caused by active inflammation and those driven by symptoms alone. Even when symptoms were similar, heart rate variability, heart rate, and resting heart rate were significantly higher when inflammation was present—suggesting wearable devices may help address the common mismatch between symptoms and actual disease activity in IBD.

“These findings support the further evaluation of wearable devices in the monitoring of IBD,” the investigators concluded.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and Ms. Jenny Steingart. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Agomab, Lilly, Merck, and others.

 

US counties with limited access to healthy food (food deserts) or a high density of unhealthy food outlets (food swamps) have higher mortality rates from metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to investigators.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.

“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”

To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.

Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.

Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).

Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.

In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).

Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality. 

“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”

This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

US counties with limited access to healthy food (food deserts) or a high density of unhealthy food outlets (food swamps) have higher mortality rates from metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to investigators.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.

“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”

To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.

Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.

Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).

Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.

In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).

Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality. 

“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”

This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

US counties with limited access to healthy food (food deserts) or a high density of unhealthy food outlets (food swamps) have higher mortality rates from metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), according to investigators.

These findings highlight the importance of addressing disparities in food environments and social determinants of health to help reduce MASLD-related mortality, lead author Annette Paik, MD, of Inova Health System, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues reported.

“Recent studies indicate that food swamps and deserts, as surrogates for food insecurity, are linked to poor glycemic control and higher adult obesity rates,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Understanding the intersection of these factors with sociodemographic and clinical variables offers insights into MASLD-related outcomes, including mortality.”

To this end, the present study examined the association between food environments and MASLD-related mortality across more than 2,195 US counties. County-level mortality data were obtained from the CDC WONDER database (2016-2020) and linked to food environment data from the US Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas using Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes. Food deserts were defined as low-income areas with limited access to grocery stores, while food swamps were characterized by a predominance of unhealthy food outlets relative to healthy ones.

Additional data on obesity, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and nine social determinants of health were obtained from CDC PLACES and other publicly available datasets. Counties were stratified into quartiles based on MASLD-related mortality rates. Population-weighted mixed-effects linear regression models were used to evaluate associations between food environment exposures and MASLD mortality, adjusting for region, rural-urban status, age, sex, race, insurance coverage, chronic dis-ease prevalence, SNAP participation, and access to exercise facilities.

Counties with the worst food environments had significantly higher MASLD-related mortality, even after adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Compared with counties in the lowest quartile of MASLD mortality, those in the highest quartile had a greater proportion of food deserts (22.3% vs 14.9%; P < .001) and food swamps (73.1% vs 65.7%; P < .001). They also had a significantly higher prevalence of obesity (40.5% vs 32.5%), type 2 diabetes (15.8% vs 11.4%), and physical inactivity (33.7% vs 24.9%).

Demographically, counties with higher MASLD mortality had significantly larger proportions of Black and Hispanic residents, and were more likely to be rural and located in the South. These counties also had significantly lower median household incomes, higher poverty rates, fewer adults with a college education, lower access to exercise opportunities, greater SNAP participation, less broadband access, and more uninsured adults.

In multivariable regression models, both food deserts and food swamps remained independently associated with MASLD mortality. Counties in the highest quartile of food desert exposure had a 14.5% higher MASLD mortality rate, compared with the lowest quartile (P = .001), and those in the highest quartile for food swamp exposure had a 13.9% higher mortality rate (P = .005).

Type 2 diabetes, physical inactivity, and lack of health insurance were also independently associated with increased MASLD-related mortality. 

“Implementing public health interventions that address the specific environmental factors of each county can help US policymakers promote access to healthy, culturally appropriate food choices at affordable prices and reduce the consumption of poor-quality food,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, improving access to parks and exercise facilities can further enhance the impact of healthy nutrition. These strategies could help curb the growing epidemic of metabolic diseases, including MASLD and related mortality.”

This study was supported by King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, the Global NASH Council, Center for Outcomes Research in Liver Diseases, and the Beatty Liver and Obesity Research Fund, Inova Health System. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.