IBD & Intestinal Disorders

BERLIN — An individual’s profile of antibody responses to a range of herpes viruses and encapsulated bacteria such as Streptococcus could predict the onset of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) up to 10 years prior to diagnosis, with differential responses between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, a new study suggested.

The research was presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

“High-throughput and high-resolution antibody profiling delineates a previously underappreciated landscape of selective serological responses in inflammatory bowel disease,” said study presenter Arno R. Bourgonje, MD, PhD, of the Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The discovery represents just the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of understanding how antibody response could predict IBD onset, he added. Although validation studies are ongoing, the findings “allow for novel insights into disease pathogenesis and also for allowing for disease prediction.”

In IBD, the integrity of the intestinal barrier is compromised and luminal agents, like bacteria, can leak through, which leads to immune activation, Bourgonje said.

However, only a few serological antibody responses are known to occur in IBD, such as antibodies against the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and those against the cytoplasm of neutrophils, he said.

But most antibody responses are directed against bacteria, Bourgonje noted. The gut microbiome represents thousands of different bacterial species, each of which encode for thousands of different genes, representing a tremendous number of potential antigens. But conventional antibody-profiling technologies weren’t powerful enough to identify antibodies in patients with IBD that signal an immune response to potential antigens in the gut.

To get at that problem, the researchers recently leveraged a high-throughput technology called phage-display immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-Seq) to look for specific immune-based biomarker signatures in the blood of individuals with IBD. This effort revealed a distinct repertoire of antibodies not only against bacteria but also against viruses and cell antigens.

The researchers next turned their sights on discovering whether they could find evidence of immunological alterations before IBD onset to enable disease prediction.

 

Predictive Signatures Found

The team used a longitudinal preclinical IBD cohort called PREDICTS (Proteomic Evaluation and Discovery in an IBD Cohort of Tri-service Subjects) that is housed in the US Department of Defense Serum Repository.

Using PhIP-Seq, the researchers analyzed serum samples from 200 individuals who developed Crohn’s disease, 200 who developed ulcerative colitis, and 100 non-IBD controls matched for age, sex, race, and study time point. The samples were collected approximately 2 years, 4 years, and 10 years prior to diagnosis as well around the time of diagnosis.

The results showed that, compared with healthy controls, the diversity of the antibody repertoire was significantly lower in the sera of individuals with preclinical Crohn’s disease (P < .05) and ulcerative colitis (P < .001), with the lowest similarity seen in people with preclinical Crohn’s disease approximately 4 years prior to their diagnosis (P < .001).

The study also found that, compared with healthy controls, antibody responses in individuals with preclinical Crohn’s disease against herpes viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV)–1 and HSV-2 were significantly higher approximately 10 years prior to the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, whereas anti-Streptococcus responses were lower.

In individuals with ulcerative colitis, antibody responses to EBV, CMV, HSV-1, and influenza viruses were significantly higher than that in healthy controls approximately 10 years prior to diagnosis, whereas anti-rhinovirus responses were lower.

Further analysis demonstrated that antibody responses to CMV and EBV proteins increased over the course of the preclinical phase of Crohn’s disease vs healthy controls (P = .008 and P = .011, respectively).

Similarly, autoantibody responses to MAP kinase–activating death domain increased during the preclinical phase of ulcerative colitis vs healthy controls (P = .0025), whereas anti-Streptococcus responses decreased (P = .005).

Interestingly, no one single antibody response difference with healthy controls was able to accurately predict the onset of IBD 10 years prior to diagnosis, but distinct sets of antibody responses were, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 for Crohn’s disease and 0.84 for ulcerative colitis.

 

A Promising Start

The study has potential to be useful for identifying people at risk for IBD, Robin Dart, MD, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital, London, England, who co-chaired the session, said in an interview.

The difference in antibody responses to viral and bacterial antigens between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis could point toward underlying biological mechanisms, although it is “too early to say,” Dart said.

However, “when you do these kind of big fishing exercises” and identify microbes may be implicated in IBD, “you end up finding more questions than answers,” although that “can only be a good thing,” he added.

Bourgonje noted that the study cohort consisted entirely of men enrolled in the US Army, limiting the applicability of the findings. Another limitation was that researchers were unable to control smoking, antibiotic use, and diet, all of which could have affected the results.

This study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Bourgonje declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Ferring, AbbVie. Other authors also declared numerous relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — An individual’s profile of antibody responses to a range of herpes viruses and encapsulated bacteria such as Streptococcus could predict the onset of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) up to 10 years prior to diagnosis, with differential responses between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, a new study suggested.

The research was presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

“High-throughput and high-resolution antibody profiling delineates a previously underappreciated landscape of selective serological responses in inflammatory bowel disease,” said study presenter Arno R. Bourgonje, MD, PhD, of the Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The discovery represents just the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of understanding how antibody response could predict IBD onset, he added. Although validation studies are ongoing, the findings “allow for novel insights into disease pathogenesis and also for allowing for disease prediction.”

In IBD, the integrity of the intestinal barrier is compromised and luminal agents, like bacteria, can leak through, which leads to immune activation, Bourgonje said.

However, only a few serological antibody responses are known to occur in IBD, such as antibodies against the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and those against the cytoplasm of neutrophils, he said.

But most antibody responses are directed against bacteria, Bourgonje noted. The gut microbiome represents thousands of different bacterial species, each of which encode for thousands of different genes, representing a tremendous number of potential antigens. But conventional antibody-profiling technologies weren’t powerful enough to identify antibodies in patients with IBD that signal an immune response to potential antigens in the gut.

To get at that problem, the researchers recently leveraged a high-throughput technology called phage-display immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-Seq) to look for specific immune-based biomarker signatures in the blood of individuals with IBD. This effort revealed a distinct repertoire of antibodies not only against bacteria but also against viruses and cell antigens.

The researchers next turned their sights on discovering whether they could find evidence of immunological alterations before IBD onset to enable disease prediction.

 

Predictive Signatures Found

The team used a longitudinal preclinical IBD cohort called PREDICTS (Proteomic Evaluation and Discovery in an IBD Cohort of Tri-service Subjects) that is housed in the US Department of Defense Serum Repository.

Using PhIP-Seq, the researchers analyzed serum samples from 200 individuals who developed Crohn’s disease, 200 who developed ulcerative colitis, and 100 non-IBD controls matched for age, sex, race, and study time point. The samples were collected approximately 2 years, 4 years, and 10 years prior to diagnosis as well around the time of diagnosis.

The results showed that, compared with healthy controls, the diversity of the antibody repertoire was significantly lower in the sera of individuals with preclinical Crohn’s disease (P < .05) and ulcerative colitis (P < .001), with the lowest similarity seen in people with preclinical Crohn’s disease approximately 4 years prior to their diagnosis (P < .001).

The study also found that, compared with healthy controls, antibody responses in individuals with preclinical Crohn’s disease against herpes viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV)–1 and HSV-2 were significantly higher approximately 10 years prior to the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, whereas anti-Streptococcus responses were lower.

In individuals with ulcerative colitis, antibody responses to EBV, CMV, HSV-1, and influenza viruses were significantly higher than that in healthy controls approximately 10 years prior to diagnosis, whereas anti-rhinovirus responses were lower.

Further analysis demonstrated that antibody responses to CMV and EBV proteins increased over the course of the preclinical phase of Crohn’s disease vs healthy controls (P = .008 and P = .011, respectively).

Similarly, autoantibody responses to MAP kinase–activating death domain increased during the preclinical phase of ulcerative colitis vs healthy controls (P = .0025), whereas anti-Streptococcus responses decreased (P = .005).

Interestingly, no one single antibody response difference with healthy controls was able to accurately predict the onset of IBD 10 years prior to diagnosis, but distinct sets of antibody responses were, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 for Crohn’s disease and 0.84 for ulcerative colitis.

 

A Promising Start

The study has potential to be useful for identifying people at risk for IBD, Robin Dart, MD, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital, London, England, who co-chaired the session, said in an interview.

The difference in antibody responses to viral and bacterial antigens between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis could point toward underlying biological mechanisms, although it is “too early to say,” Dart said.

However, “when you do these kind of big fishing exercises” and identify microbes may be implicated in IBD, “you end up finding more questions than answers,” although that “can only be a good thing,” he added.

Bourgonje noted that the study cohort consisted entirely of men enrolled in the US Army, limiting the applicability of the findings. Another limitation was that researchers were unable to control smoking, antibiotic use, and diet, all of which could have affected the results.

This study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Bourgonje declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Ferring, AbbVie. Other authors also declared numerous relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — An individual’s profile of antibody responses to a range of herpes viruses and encapsulated bacteria such as Streptococcus could predict the onset of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) up to 10 years prior to diagnosis, with differential responses between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, a new study suggested.

The research was presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

“High-throughput and high-resolution antibody profiling delineates a previously underappreciated landscape of selective serological responses in inflammatory bowel disease,” said study presenter Arno R. Bourgonje, MD, PhD, of the Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

The discovery represents just the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of understanding how antibody response could predict IBD onset, he added. Although validation studies are ongoing, the findings “allow for novel insights into disease pathogenesis and also for allowing for disease prediction.”

In IBD, the integrity of the intestinal barrier is compromised and luminal agents, like bacteria, can leak through, which leads to immune activation, Bourgonje said.

However, only a few serological antibody responses are known to occur in IBD, such as antibodies against the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and those against the cytoplasm of neutrophils, he said.

But most antibody responses are directed against bacteria, Bourgonje noted. The gut microbiome represents thousands of different bacterial species, each of which encode for thousands of different genes, representing a tremendous number of potential antigens. But conventional antibody-profiling technologies weren’t powerful enough to identify antibodies in patients with IBD that signal an immune response to potential antigens in the gut.

To get at that problem, the researchers recently leveraged a high-throughput technology called phage-display immunoprecipitation sequencing (PhIP-Seq) to look for specific immune-based biomarker signatures in the blood of individuals with IBD. This effort revealed a distinct repertoire of antibodies not only against bacteria but also against viruses and cell antigens.

The researchers next turned their sights on discovering whether they could find evidence of immunological alterations before IBD onset to enable disease prediction.

 

Predictive Signatures Found

The team used a longitudinal preclinical IBD cohort called PREDICTS (Proteomic Evaluation and Discovery in an IBD Cohort of Tri-service Subjects) that is housed in the US Department of Defense Serum Repository.

Using PhIP-Seq, the researchers analyzed serum samples from 200 individuals who developed Crohn’s disease, 200 who developed ulcerative colitis, and 100 non-IBD controls matched for age, sex, race, and study time point. The samples were collected approximately 2 years, 4 years, and 10 years prior to diagnosis as well around the time of diagnosis.

The results showed that, compared with healthy controls, the diversity of the antibody repertoire was significantly lower in the sera of individuals with preclinical Crohn’s disease (P < .05) and ulcerative colitis (P < .001), with the lowest similarity seen in people with preclinical Crohn’s disease approximately 4 years prior to their diagnosis (P < .001).

The study also found that, compared with healthy controls, antibody responses in individuals with preclinical Crohn’s disease against herpes viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV)–1 and HSV-2 were significantly higher approximately 10 years prior to the diagnosis of Crohn’s disease, whereas anti-Streptococcus responses were lower.

In individuals with ulcerative colitis, antibody responses to EBV, CMV, HSV-1, and influenza viruses were significantly higher than that in healthy controls approximately 10 years prior to diagnosis, whereas anti-rhinovirus responses were lower.

Further analysis demonstrated that antibody responses to CMV and EBV proteins increased over the course of the preclinical phase of Crohn’s disease vs healthy controls (P = .008 and P = .011, respectively).

Similarly, autoantibody responses to MAP kinase–activating death domain increased during the preclinical phase of ulcerative colitis vs healthy controls (P = .0025), whereas anti-Streptococcus responses decreased (P = .005).

Interestingly, no one single antibody response difference with healthy controls was able to accurately predict the onset of IBD 10 years prior to diagnosis, but distinct sets of antibody responses were, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 for Crohn’s disease and 0.84 for ulcerative colitis.

 

A Promising Start

The study has potential to be useful for identifying people at risk for IBD, Robin Dart, MD, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St Thomas Hospital, London, England, who co-chaired the session, said in an interview.

The difference in antibody responses to viral and bacterial antigens between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis could point toward underlying biological mechanisms, although it is “too early to say,” Dart said.

However, “when you do these kind of big fishing exercises” and identify microbes may be implicated in IBD, “you end up finding more questions than answers,” although that “can only be a good thing,” he added.

Bourgonje noted that the study cohort consisted entirely of men enrolled in the US Army, limiting the applicability of the findings. Another limitation was that researchers were unable to control smoking, antibiotic use, and diet, all of which could have affected the results.

This study was funded by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Bourgonje declared relationships with Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Ferring, AbbVie. Other authors also declared numerous relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A multi-omics approach has identified a range of biomarkers associated with treatment response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the results of a new study presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

Differences uncovered in multiple messenger RNAs, proteins, metabolites, and gut microbiota were associated with responders and nonresponders to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors, suggesting the potential for predictive biomarkers in IBD, including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

“With further work we hope to confirm these findings and evaluate their clinical relevance in identifying patients most likely to respond to tailored therapeutic interventions,” said Montserrat Baldan-Martin, PhD, a researcher at the University Hospital of the Princess, Madrid, Spain.

The treatment of IBD is challenging because of the heterogeneity across clinical, immunological, molecular, genetic, and microbiologic features, with one third of patients failing to respond to any one treatment.

Baldan-Martin and colleagues wanted to find predictive biomarkers of response by examining the differences across multi-omics profiles relative to different therapies.

The study analyzed 127 patients with IBD (57 with CD and 70 with UC) before and after 14 weeks of treatment with one of the following: anti–tumor necrosis factors (TNFs), ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. Patient response to treatment was evaluated using endoscopic criteria that categorized them as responders or nonresponders to the different therapies.

In addition, molecular data from various biologic samples — serum, urine, extracellular vesicles, intestinal biopsies, and stool — were tested using transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics.

 

Clear Differences

“The most significant differences were seen in gene expression within intestinal tissue of responder and nonresponder patients with ulcerative colitis taking vedolizumab,” Baldan-Martin reported.

Proteomic analysis revealed that a total of 1377 proteins were identified across all groups (CD, UC, and the four drug classes/therapies). Responders and nonresponders for each therapy expressed different proteins in serum extracellular vesicles and intestinal tissues.

For example, patients with CD who responded to anti-TNF therapies had 138 different proteins from those of anti-TNF nonresponders, while patients with UC who responded to anti-TNF therapies had 218 different proteins from those of anti-TNF nonresponders, reported Baldan-Martin.

Also, we observed almost no proteins “in common between ulcerative colitis responders versus nonresponders for all treatments,” she noted. And we “saw only three proteins in common with Crohn’s disease patients [on different drugs].”

Metabolomic analysis identified deregulation of 24 serum lipoproteins in CD responders to ustekinumab, compared with nonresponders.

“We observed greater differences in the lipoproteins in serum than metabolites in serum and urine,” Baldan-Martin added.

Analysis of biologic pathways also highlighted enrichment in ketone and butyrate metabolism, mitochondrial electron transport chain activity, carnitine synthesis, and fatty acid oxidation pathways, while metagenomic analysis revealed the greatest microbial differences in UC responders and nonresponders to anti-TNF therapies.

Baldan-Martin said research was ongoing with a new cohort of patients that aims to validate some of the biomarkers and help identify the patients most likely to respond to tailored therapeutic interventions.

“One of the challenges is integrating results from different omics approaches to create a more holistic understanding of the disease,” she said, adding that she hopes the research “will potentially open doors for early detection through multi-panel biomarkers.”

Session moderator Mark Samaan, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, said that “the findings related to nonresponse to specific drugs in UC and CD were interesting. With longitudinal follow-up, we’d hope this might help us pick out patients less likely to respond and who show early nonresponse to specific drugs based on serum, urine, and fecal sampling.”

“It’s very helpful to know if someone is a nonresponder within 14 weeks because we can then move the patient on to something else relatively quickly,” he added.

Baldan-Martin and Samaan declared no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A multi-omics approach has identified a range of biomarkers associated with treatment response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the results of a new study presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

Differences uncovered in multiple messenger RNAs, proteins, metabolites, and gut microbiota were associated with responders and nonresponders to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors, suggesting the potential for predictive biomarkers in IBD, including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

“With further work we hope to confirm these findings and evaluate their clinical relevance in identifying patients most likely to respond to tailored therapeutic interventions,” said Montserrat Baldan-Martin, PhD, a researcher at the University Hospital of the Princess, Madrid, Spain.

The treatment of IBD is challenging because of the heterogeneity across clinical, immunological, molecular, genetic, and microbiologic features, with one third of patients failing to respond to any one treatment.

Baldan-Martin and colleagues wanted to find predictive biomarkers of response by examining the differences across multi-omics profiles relative to different therapies.

The study analyzed 127 patients with IBD (57 with CD and 70 with UC) before and after 14 weeks of treatment with one of the following: anti–tumor necrosis factors (TNFs), ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. Patient response to treatment was evaluated using endoscopic criteria that categorized them as responders or nonresponders to the different therapies.

In addition, molecular data from various biologic samples — serum, urine, extracellular vesicles, intestinal biopsies, and stool — were tested using transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics.

 

Clear Differences

“The most significant differences were seen in gene expression within intestinal tissue of responder and nonresponder patients with ulcerative colitis taking vedolizumab,” Baldan-Martin reported.

Proteomic analysis revealed that a total of 1377 proteins were identified across all groups (CD, UC, and the four drug classes/therapies). Responders and nonresponders for each therapy expressed different proteins in serum extracellular vesicles and intestinal tissues.

For example, patients with CD who responded to anti-TNF therapies had 138 different proteins from those of anti-TNF nonresponders, while patients with UC who responded to anti-TNF therapies had 218 different proteins from those of anti-TNF nonresponders, reported Baldan-Martin.

Also, we observed almost no proteins “in common between ulcerative colitis responders versus nonresponders for all treatments,” she noted. And we “saw only three proteins in common with Crohn’s disease patients [on different drugs].”

Metabolomic analysis identified deregulation of 24 serum lipoproteins in CD responders to ustekinumab, compared with nonresponders.

“We observed greater differences in the lipoproteins in serum than metabolites in serum and urine,” Baldan-Martin added.

Analysis of biologic pathways also highlighted enrichment in ketone and butyrate metabolism, mitochondrial electron transport chain activity, carnitine synthesis, and fatty acid oxidation pathways, while metagenomic analysis revealed the greatest microbial differences in UC responders and nonresponders to anti-TNF therapies.

Baldan-Martin said research was ongoing with a new cohort of patients that aims to validate some of the biomarkers and help identify the patients most likely to respond to tailored therapeutic interventions.

“One of the challenges is integrating results from different omics approaches to create a more holistic understanding of the disease,” she said, adding that she hopes the research “will potentially open doors for early detection through multi-panel biomarkers.”

Session moderator Mark Samaan, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, said that “the findings related to nonresponse to specific drugs in UC and CD were interesting. With longitudinal follow-up, we’d hope this might help us pick out patients less likely to respond and who show early nonresponse to specific drugs based on serum, urine, and fecal sampling.”

“It’s very helpful to know if someone is a nonresponder within 14 weeks because we can then move the patient on to something else relatively quickly,” he added.

Baldan-Martin and Samaan declared no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — A multi-omics approach has identified a range of biomarkers associated with treatment response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), according to the results of a new study presented at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

Differences uncovered in multiple messenger RNAs, proteins, metabolites, and gut microbiota were associated with responders and nonresponders to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors, suggesting the potential for predictive biomarkers in IBD, including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

“With further work we hope to confirm these findings and evaluate their clinical relevance in identifying patients most likely to respond to tailored therapeutic interventions,” said Montserrat Baldan-Martin, PhD, a researcher at the University Hospital of the Princess, Madrid, Spain.

The treatment of IBD is challenging because of the heterogeneity across clinical, immunological, molecular, genetic, and microbiologic features, with one third of patients failing to respond to any one treatment.

Baldan-Martin and colleagues wanted to find predictive biomarkers of response by examining the differences across multi-omics profiles relative to different therapies.

The study analyzed 127 patients with IBD (57 with CD and 70 with UC) before and after 14 weeks of treatment with one of the following: anti–tumor necrosis factors (TNFs), ustekinumab, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib. Patient response to treatment was evaluated using endoscopic criteria that categorized them as responders or nonresponders to the different therapies.

In addition, molecular data from various biologic samples — serum, urine, extracellular vesicles, intestinal biopsies, and stool — were tested using transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and metagenomics.

 

Clear Differences

“The most significant differences were seen in gene expression within intestinal tissue of responder and nonresponder patients with ulcerative colitis taking vedolizumab,” Baldan-Martin reported.

Proteomic analysis revealed that a total of 1377 proteins were identified across all groups (CD, UC, and the four drug classes/therapies). Responders and nonresponders for each therapy expressed different proteins in serum extracellular vesicles and intestinal tissues.

For example, patients with CD who responded to anti-TNF therapies had 138 different proteins from those of anti-TNF nonresponders, while patients with UC who responded to anti-TNF therapies had 218 different proteins from those of anti-TNF nonresponders, reported Baldan-Martin.

Also, we observed almost no proteins “in common between ulcerative colitis responders versus nonresponders for all treatments,” she noted. And we “saw only three proteins in common with Crohn’s disease patients [on different drugs].”

Metabolomic analysis identified deregulation of 24 serum lipoproteins in CD responders to ustekinumab, compared with nonresponders.

“We observed greater differences in the lipoproteins in serum than metabolites in serum and urine,” Baldan-Martin added.

Analysis of biologic pathways also highlighted enrichment in ketone and butyrate metabolism, mitochondrial electron transport chain activity, carnitine synthesis, and fatty acid oxidation pathways, while metagenomic analysis revealed the greatest microbial differences in UC responders and nonresponders to anti-TNF therapies.

Baldan-Martin said research was ongoing with a new cohort of patients that aims to validate some of the biomarkers and help identify the patients most likely to respond to tailored therapeutic interventions.

“One of the challenges is integrating results from different omics approaches to create a more holistic understanding of the disease,” she said, adding that she hopes the research “will potentially open doors for early detection through multi-panel biomarkers.”

Session moderator Mark Samaan, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, England, said that “the findings related to nonresponse to specific drugs in UC and CD were interesting. With longitudinal follow-up, we’d hope this might help us pick out patients less likely to respond and who show early nonresponse to specific drugs based on serum, urine, and fecal sampling.”

“It’s very helpful to know if someone is a nonresponder within 14 weeks because we can then move the patient on to something else relatively quickly,” he added.

Baldan-Martin and Samaan declared no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Adherence to a healthy plant-based diet is associated with a reduced risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), whereas an unhealthy plant-based diet is linked to an increased disease risk and worse outcomes, according to the results of a large cohort study.

The study, which included both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), also showed that diet quality may affect disease progression and surgery risk for individuals already diagnosed with IBD.

“Not all plant-based foods are equal — they don’t all have the same effect on health outcomes,” said study researcher, Judith Wellens, MD, PhD, gastroenterology resident at Leuven University Hospital in Belgium.

“We need to look at what people are eating more carefully because it isn’t black and white, with all plant-based food being good and animal-based food being bad,” said Wellens, who presented the data at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

Although she advocates for plant-based diets, Wellens stressed that “they need to be individualized to ensure the overall dietary quality is good. Just cutting out meat products is not very helpful. We think it is the unhealthy additions to some plant-based diets that drive the IBD risk.”

 

Is It the Plants or the Processed Ingredients? 

“Preclinical studies have already taught us that plant-based diets alter the gut microbiota in a beneficial way. However, many diets promoted for IBD — for example the Crohn’s disease exclusion diet — contain ingredients that are animal based. This is confusing for patients and for clinicians,” said Wellens.

To look more closely at the question, she and her colleagues analyzed data for 187,888 participants from the UK Biobank and 341,539 participants from across eight European countries from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. None of the participants had IBD at baseline.

Based on participant 24-hour dietary recalls, the researchers constructed plant-based diet indices (PDIs) with diets categorized as healthy (eg, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and vegetarian protein alternatives) or unhealthy (eg, emulsifiers, refined grains, fries, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed foods).

The primary outcome was the incidence of IBD (either CD or UC), whereas the secondary outcome was IBD-related surgery, thereby marking disease progression. Cox regression analysis estimated IBD risk and progression. Incidences of IBD were similar between the two cohorts.

In the UK Biobank cohort, 925 participants developed IBD over a median follow-up of 11.6 years. Participants who followed a healthy PDI had a 25% reduced IBD risk, whereas those who followed an unhealthy PDI had a 48% increased risk for disease development. Both CD and UC showed similar outcomes.

The EPIC cohort had a longer median follow-up time of 14.5 years, during which 548 people developed IBD. Healthy PDIs were linked to a 29% reduced risk for IBD, whereas unhealthy PDIs were associated with a 54% increased risk.

A healthy PDI halved the risk for surgery in participants from the UK Biobank, whereas an unhealthy PDI was associated with a twofold higher risk for surgery.

There were no significant associations between PDIs and other outcomes, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or all-cause mortality.

The researchers also looked at the interactions between genetics and plant-based diets, but those results were not presented at the meeting.

However, Wellens said in an interview that people with a moderate to high risk for IBD based on their polygenetic risk score showed increased odds for IBD risk.

“We don’t test people for their genetic risk of IBD, but if people have close relatives with IBD, then there is probably an increased genetic risk of its development,” she added.

Commenting on the findings, James Lindsay, PhD, professor of inflammatory bowel disease, Queen Mary University of London in England, said that several recent epidemiological studies have highlighted “the negative impact of ultra-processed foods on increasing the risk of developing Crohn’s disease.”

Based on these studies, “one might assume that plant-based diets would be protective,” he said, however, the current study shows us “that plant-based diets are not all equal and there are unhealthy aspects to some.”

“Of course, showing that a diet is associated with an outcome is not the same as knowing that changing a diet will reduce the risk,” Lindsay added. “That requires a well-designed, carefully controlled trial.”

Wellens and Lindsay reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Adherence to a healthy plant-based diet is associated with a reduced risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), whereas an unhealthy plant-based diet is linked to an increased disease risk and worse outcomes, according to the results of a large cohort study.

The study, which included both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), also showed that diet quality may affect disease progression and surgery risk for individuals already diagnosed with IBD.

“Not all plant-based foods are equal — they don’t all have the same effect on health outcomes,” said study researcher, Judith Wellens, MD, PhD, gastroenterology resident at Leuven University Hospital in Belgium.

“We need to look at what people are eating more carefully because it isn’t black and white, with all plant-based food being good and animal-based food being bad,” said Wellens, who presented the data at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

Although she advocates for plant-based diets, Wellens stressed that “they need to be individualized to ensure the overall dietary quality is good. Just cutting out meat products is not very helpful. We think it is the unhealthy additions to some plant-based diets that drive the IBD risk.”

 

Is It the Plants or the Processed Ingredients? 

“Preclinical studies have already taught us that plant-based diets alter the gut microbiota in a beneficial way. However, many diets promoted for IBD — for example the Crohn’s disease exclusion diet — contain ingredients that are animal based. This is confusing for patients and for clinicians,” said Wellens.

To look more closely at the question, she and her colleagues analyzed data for 187,888 participants from the UK Biobank and 341,539 participants from across eight European countries from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. None of the participants had IBD at baseline.

Based on participant 24-hour dietary recalls, the researchers constructed plant-based diet indices (PDIs) with diets categorized as healthy (eg, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and vegetarian protein alternatives) or unhealthy (eg, emulsifiers, refined grains, fries, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed foods).

The primary outcome was the incidence of IBD (either CD or UC), whereas the secondary outcome was IBD-related surgery, thereby marking disease progression. Cox regression analysis estimated IBD risk and progression. Incidences of IBD were similar between the two cohorts.

In the UK Biobank cohort, 925 participants developed IBD over a median follow-up of 11.6 years. Participants who followed a healthy PDI had a 25% reduced IBD risk, whereas those who followed an unhealthy PDI had a 48% increased risk for disease development. Both CD and UC showed similar outcomes.

The EPIC cohort had a longer median follow-up time of 14.5 years, during which 548 people developed IBD. Healthy PDIs were linked to a 29% reduced risk for IBD, whereas unhealthy PDIs were associated with a 54% increased risk.

A healthy PDI halved the risk for surgery in participants from the UK Biobank, whereas an unhealthy PDI was associated with a twofold higher risk for surgery.

There were no significant associations between PDIs and other outcomes, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or all-cause mortality.

The researchers also looked at the interactions between genetics and plant-based diets, but those results were not presented at the meeting.

However, Wellens said in an interview that people with a moderate to high risk for IBD based on their polygenetic risk score showed increased odds for IBD risk.

“We don’t test people for their genetic risk of IBD, but if people have close relatives with IBD, then there is probably an increased genetic risk of its development,” she added.

Commenting on the findings, James Lindsay, PhD, professor of inflammatory bowel disease, Queen Mary University of London in England, said that several recent epidemiological studies have highlighted “the negative impact of ultra-processed foods on increasing the risk of developing Crohn’s disease.”

Based on these studies, “one might assume that plant-based diets would be protective,” he said, however, the current study shows us “that plant-based diets are not all equal and there are unhealthy aspects to some.”

“Of course, showing that a diet is associated with an outcome is not the same as knowing that changing a diet will reduce the risk,” Lindsay added. “That requires a well-designed, carefully controlled trial.”

Wellens and Lindsay reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Adherence to a healthy plant-based diet is associated with a reduced risk of developing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), whereas an unhealthy plant-based diet is linked to an increased disease risk and worse outcomes, according to the results of a large cohort study.

The study, which included both Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), also showed that diet quality may affect disease progression and surgery risk for individuals already diagnosed with IBD.

“Not all plant-based foods are equal — they don’t all have the same effect on health outcomes,” said study researcher, Judith Wellens, MD, PhD, gastroenterology resident at Leuven University Hospital in Belgium.

“We need to look at what people are eating more carefully because it isn’t black and white, with all plant-based food being good and animal-based food being bad,” said Wellens, who presented the data at the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2025 Congress.

Although she advocates for plant-based diets, Wellens stressed that “they need to be individualized to ensure the overall dietary quality is good. Just cutting out meat products is not very helpful. We think it is the unhealthy additions to some plant-based diets that drive the IBD risk.”

 

Is It the Plants or the Processed Ingredients? 

“Preclinical studies have already taught us that plant-based diets alter the gut microbiota in a beneficial way. However, many diets promoted for IBD — for example the Crohn’s disease exclusion diet — contain ingredients that are animal based. This is confusing for patients and for clinicians,” said Wellens.

To look more closely at the question, she and her colleagues analyzed data for 187,888 participants from the UK Biobank and 341,539 participants from across eight European countries from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort. None of the participants had IBD at baseline.

Based on participant 24-hour dietary recalls, the researchers constructed plant-based diet indices (PDIs) with diets categorized as healthy (eg, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and vegetarian protein alternatives) or unhealthy (eg, emulsifiers, refined grains, fries, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, sugar-sweetened beverages, and processed foods).

The primary outcome was the incidence of IBD (either CD or UC), whereas the secondary outcome was IBD-related surgery, thereby marking disease progression. Cox regression analysis estimated IBD risk and progression. Incidences of IBD were similar between the two cohorts.

In the UK Biobank cohort, 925 participants developed IBD over a median follow-up of 11.6 years. Participants who followed a healthy PDI had a 25% reduced IBD risk, whereas those who followed an unhealthy PDI had a 48% increased risk for disease development. Both CD and UC showed similar outcomes.

The EPIC cohort had a longer median follow-up time of 14.5 years, during which 548 people developed IBD. Healthy PDIs were linked to a 29% reduced risk for IBD, whereas unhealthy PDIs were associated with a 54% increased risk.

A healthy PDI halved the risk for surgery in participants from the UK Biobank, whereas an unhealthy PDI was associated with a twofold higher risk for surgery.

There were no significant associations between PDIs and other outcomes, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or all-cause mortality.

The researchers also looked at the interactions between genetics and plant-based diets, but those results were not presented at the meeting.

However, Wellens said in an interview that people with a moderate to high risk for IBD based on their polygenetic risk score showed increased odds for IBD risk.

“We don’t test people for their genetic risk of IBD, but if people have close relatives with IBD, then there is probably an increased genetic risk of its development,” she added.

Commenting on the findings, James Lindsay, PhD, professor of inflammatory bowel disease, Queen Mary University of London in England, said that several recent epidemiological studies have highlighted “the negative impact of ultra-processed foods on increasing the risk of developing Crohn’s disease.”

Based on these studies, “one might assume that plant-based diets would be protective,” he said, however, the current study shows us “that plant-based diets are not all equal and there are unhealthy aspects to some.”

“Of course, showing that a diet is associated with an outcome is not the same as knowing that changing a diet will reduce the risk,” Lindsay added. “That requires a well-designed, carefully controlled trial.”

Wellens and Lindsay reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Brief Introduction to the SGM Communities

The sexual and gender minority (SGM) communities (see Table 1), also termed “LGBTQIA+ community” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, plus — including two spirit) are historically minoritized with unique risks for inequities in gastrointestinal health outcomes.¹ These potential disparities remain largely uninvestigated because of continued systemic discrimination and inadequate collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data,² with the National Institutes of Health Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) having been instructed to address these failures. There is increased SGM self-identification (7.1% of all people in the United States and 20.8% of generation Z).³ Given the high worldwide prevalence of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs)and the influence of biopsychosocial determinants of health in DGBI incidence,⁴ it becomes increasingly likely that research in DGBI-related factors in SGM people will be fruitful.

Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction and the Potential Minority Stress Link in SGM People

DGBIs are gastrointestinal conditions that occur because of brain-gut axis dysregulation. There is evidence that chronic stress and trauma negatively influence brain-gut interaction, which likely results in minority communities who face increased levels of trauma, stress, discrimination, and social injustice being at higher risk of DGBI development.^5-7 Given increased rates of trauma in the SGM community, practicing trauma-informed care is essential to increase patient comfort and decrease the chance of retraumatization in medical settings.⁸ Trauma-informed care focuses on how trauma influences a patient’s life and response to medical care. To practice trauma-informed care, screening for trauma when appropriate, actively creating a supportive environment with active listening and communication, with informing the patient of planned actions prior to doing them, like physical exams, is key.

Trauma-Informed Care: Examples of Verbiage

Asking about Identity

• Begin by introducing yourself with your pronouns to create a safe environment for patient disclosure. Example: “Hello, I am Dr. Kara Jencks, and my pronouns are she/her. I am one of the gastroenterologists here at XYZ Clinic. How would you prefer to be addressed?”
• You can also wear a pronoun lapel pin or a pronoun button on your ID badge to indicate you are someone who your patient can be themselves around.
• The easiest way to obtain sexual orientation and gender identity is through intake forms. Below are examples of how to ask these questions on intake forms. It is important to offer the option to select more than one option when applicable and to opt out of answering if the patient is not comfortable answering these questions.

Sample Questions for Intake Forms

1. What is your sex assigned at birth? (Select one)

• Female
• Male
• Intersex
• Do not know
• Prefer not to disclose

2. What is your gender identity? (Select all that apply)

• Nonbinary
• Gender queer
• Woman
• Man
• Transwoman
• Transman
• Gender fluid
• Two-spirit
• Agender
• Intersex
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

3. What are your pronouns? (Select all that apply)

• They/them/theirs
• She/her/hers
• He/him/his
• Zie/zir/zirs
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

4. What is your sexual orientation? (Select all that apply)

• Bisexual
• Pansexual
• Queer
• Lesbian
• Gay
• Asexual
• Demisexual
• Heterosexual or straight
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

Screening for Trauma

While there are questionnaires that exist to ask about trauma history, if time allows, it can be helpful to screen verbally with the patient. See reference number 8, for additional prompts and actions to practice trauma-informed care.

• Example: “Many patients with gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders have experienced trauma in the past. We do our best to ensure we are keeping you as comfortable as possible while caring for you. Are you comfortable sharing this information? [if yes->] Do you have a history of trauma, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse? ... Have these experiences impacted the way in which you navigate your healthcare? ... Is there anything we can do to make you more comfortable today?”

General Physical Examination

Provide details for what you are going to do before you do it. Ask for permission for the examination. Here are two examples:

• “I would like to perform a physical exam to help better understand your symptoms. Is that okay with you?”
• “I would like to examine your abdomen with my stethoscope and my hands. Here is a sheet that we can use to help with your privacy. Please let me know if and when you feel any tenderness or pain.”

Rectal Physical Examination

Let the patient know why it would be helpful to perform a rectal exam, what the rectal exam will entail, and the benefits and risks to doing a rectal exam. An example follows:

• “Based on the symptoms you are describing, I think it would be helpful to perform a rectal exam to make sure you don’t have any fissures or hemorrhoids on the outside around the anus, any blockages or major issues inside the rectum, and to assess the strength and ability of your nerves and muscles or the pelvic floor to coordinate bowel movements. There are no risks aside from discomfort. If it is painful, and you would like me to stop, you tell me to stop, and I will stop right away. What questions do you have? Are we okay to proceed with the rectal exam?”
• “Please pull down your undergarments and your pants to either midthigh, your ankles, or all the way off, whatever your preference is, lie down on the left side on the exam table, and cover yourself with this sheet. In the meantime, I will be getting a chaperone to keep us safe and serve as a patient advocate during the procedure.”
• Upon returning to the exam room: “Here is Sara, who will be chaperoning today. Let myself or Sara know if you are uncomfortable or having pain during this exam. I will be lifting up the sheet to get a good look around the anus. [lifts up sheet] You will feel my hand helping to spread apart the buttocks. I am looking around the anus, and I do not see any fissures, hemorrhoids, or anything else concerning. Please squeeze in like you are trying to hold in gas. Please bear down like you are trying to have a bowel movement or let out gas. Okay, now you may feel some cold gel around the anus, and you will feel my finger go inside. Take a deep breath in. Do you feel any pain as I palpate? Please squeeze in like you are trying to hold in gas. Please bear down like you are trying to have a bowel movement or let out gas. I will be stopping the exam now.”
• You would then wash your hands and allow the patient to get dressed, and then disclose the exam findings and the rest of your visit.

Ilan H. Meyer coined the minority stress model when discussing mental health disorders in SGM patients in the early 2000s.⁹ With it being well known that DGBIs can overlap with (but are not necessarily caused by) mental health disorders, this model can easily apply to unify multiple individual and societal factors that can combine to result in disorders of brain-gut interaction (see Figure 1) in SGM communities. Let us keep this framework in mind when evaluating the following cases. 

 

Case Presentations

Case 1

A 56-year-old man (pronouns: he/him) assigned male sex at birth, who identifies as gay, presents to your gastroenterology clinic for treatment-refractory constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. It has impacted his sexual function. Outside hospital records report a normal colonoscopy 1 year ago and an unremarkable abdominal computerized tomography 4 months ago, aside from increased stool burden in the entire colon. He has tried to use enemas prior to sex, though these do not always help. Fiber-rich diet and fermentable food avoidance has not been successful. He is currently taking two capfuls of polyethylene glycol 3350 twice per day, as well as senna at night and continues to have a bowel movement every 2-3 days that is Bristol stool form scale type 1-2 unless he uses enemas. How do you counsel this patient about his IBS-C and rectal discomfort?

After assessing for sexual violence or other potential trauma-related factors, your digital rectal examination suggests that an anorectal defecatory disorder is less likely with normal relaxation and perineal movement. You recommend linaclotide. He notices improvement within 1 week, with improved comfort during anoreceptive sex. 

 

Case 2

A 30-year-old woman (pronouns: she/her) assigned male sex at birth who has sex with men underwent vaginoplasty 2 years ago and is referred to the gastroenterology clinic for fecal incontinence and diarrhea. On review of her anatomic inventory, her vaginoplasty was a penile inversion vaginoplasty (no intestinal tissue was used for creation), and her prostate was left intact. The vaginal vault was created in between the urethra and rectum, similar to the pelvic floor anatomy of a woman assigned female sex at birth. Blood, imaging, and endoscopic workup has been negative. She is also not taking any medications associated with diarrhea, only taking estrogen and spironolactone. The diarrhea is not daily, but when present, about once per week, can be up to 10 episodes per day, and she has a sense of incomplete evacuation regularly. She notes having a rectal exam in the past but is not sure if her pelvic floor muscles have ever been assessed. How do you manage this patient?

To complete her evaluation in the office, you perform a trauma-informed rectal exam which reveals a decreased resting anal sphincter tone and paradoxical defecatory maneuvers without tenderness to the puborectalis muscle. Augmentation of the squeeze is also weak. Given her pelvic floor related surgical history, her symptoms, and her rectal exam, you recommend anorectal manometry which is abnormal and send her for anorectal biofeedback pelvic floor physical therapy, which improves her symptoms significantly. 

Case 3

A 36-year-old woman (pronouns: she/her) assigned female sex at birth, who identifies as a lesbian, has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder and chronic nausea and vomiting that has begun to affect her quality of life. She notes the nausea and vomiting used to be managed well with evening cannabis gummies, though in the past 3 months, the nausea and vomiting has worsened, and she has lost 20 pounds as a result. As symptom predated cannabis usage, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) was less likely (an important point as she has been stigmatized during prior encounters for her cannabis usage). Her primary care physician recommended a gastroscopy which was normal, aside from some residual solid food material in the stomach. Her bowel movements are normal, and she doesn’t have other gastrointestinal symptoms. She and her wife are considering having a third child, so she is worried about medications that may affect pregnancy or breast-feeding. How do you manage her nausea and vomiting?

After validating her concerns and performing a trauma-informed physical exam and encounter, you recommend a 4-hour gastric emptying test with a standard radiolabeled egg meal. Her gastric emptying does reveal significantly delayed gastric emptying at 2 and 4 hours. You discuss the risks and benefits of lifestyle modification (smaller frequent meals), initiating medications (erythromycin and metoclopramide) or cessation of cannabis (despite low likelihood of CHS). Desiring to avoid starting medications around initiation of pregnancy, she opts for the dietary approach and cessation of cannabis. You see her at a follow-up visit in 6 months, and her nausea is now only once a month, and she is excited to begin planning for a pregnancy using assisted reproductive technology. 

 

Case 4

A 20-year-old nonbinary intersex individual (pronouns: he/they) (incorrectly assigned female at birth — is intersex with congenital adrenal hyperplasia) presents to the gastroenterology clinic with 8 years of heartburn, acid reflux, postprandial bloating, alternating diarrhea and constipation, nausea, and vomiting, complicated by avoidant restrictive food intake disorder. They have a history of bipolar II disorder with prior suicidal ideation. He has not yet had diagnostic workup as he previously had a bad encounter with a gastroenterologist where the gastroenterologist blamed his symptoms on his gender-affirming therapy, misgendered the patient, and told the patient their symptoms were “all in her [sic] head.”

You recognize that affirming their gender and using proper pronouns is the best first way to start rapport and help break the cycle of medicalized trauma. You then recommend a holistic work up with interdisciplinary management because of the complexity of his symptoms. For testing, you recommend a colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, a gastric emptying test with a 48-hour transit scintigraphy test, anorectal manometry, a dietitian referral, and a gastrointestinal psychology referral. Their anorectal manometry is consistent with an evacuation disorder. The rest of the work up is unremarkable. You diagnose them with anorectal pelvic floor dysfunction and functional dyspepsia, recommending biofeedback pelvic floor physical therapy, a proton-pump inhibitor, and neuromodulation in coordination with psychiatry and psychology to start with a plan for follow-up. The patient appreciates you for helping them and listening to their symptoms. 

 

Discussion

When approaching DGBIs in the SGM community, it is vital to validate their concerns and be inclusive with diagnostic and treatment modalities. The diagnostic tools and treatments for DGBI are not different for patients in the SGM community. Like with other patients, trauma-informed care should be utilized, particularly given higher rates of trauma and discrimination in this community. Importantly, their DGBI is not a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and hormone therapy is not the cause of their DGBI. Recommending cessation of gender-affirming care or recommending lifestyle measures against their identity is generally not appropriate or necessary. With increased scrutiny being a reality of SGM people’s existence in recent years, cultural humility is needed to establish the rapport necessary to treat DGBIs among members of the SGM communities.

Dr. Jencks (@karajencks) is based in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Vélez (@Chris_Velez_MD) is based in the division of gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Both authors do not have any conflicts of interest for this article.

References

1. Duong N et al. 2023 Apr. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00005-5.

2. Vélez C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001804.

3. Jones JM. Gallup. LGBTQ+ identification in U.S. now at 7.6%. 2024 Mar 13. https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx

4. Sperber AD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.014.

5. Wiley JW et al. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12706.

6. Labanski A et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104501.

7. Khlevner J et al. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2018.07.002.

8. Jagielski CH and Harer KN. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2022.07.012.

9. Meyer IH. Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

10. Mahurkar-Joshi S and Chang L. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00805.

Brief Introduction to the SGM Communities

The sexual and gender minority (SGM) communities (see Table 1), also termed “LGBTQIA+ community” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, plus — including two spirit) are historically minoritized with unique risks for inequities in gastrointestinal health outcomes.¹ These potential disparities remain largely uninvestigated because of continued systemic discrimination and inadequate collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data,² with the National Institutes of Health Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) having been instructed to address these failures. There is increased SGM self-identification (7.1% of all people in the United States and 20.8% of generation Z).³ Given the high worldwide prevalence of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs)and the influence of biopsychosocial determinants of health in DGBI incidence,⁴ it becomes increasingly likely that research in DGBI-related factors in SGM people will be fruitful.

Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction and the Potential Minority Stress Link in SGM People

DGBIs are gastrointestinal conditions that occur because of brain-gut axis dysregulation. There is evidence that chronic stress and trauma negatively influence brain-gut interaction, which likely results in minority communities who face increased levels of trauma, stress, discrimination, and social injustice being at higher risk of DGBI development.^5-7 Given increased rates of trauma in the SGM community, practicing trauma-informed care is essential to increase patient comfort and decrease the chance of retraumatization in medical settings.⁸ Trauma-informed care focuses on how trauma influences a patient’s life and response to medical care. To practice trauma-informed care, screening for trauma when appropriate, actively creating a supportive environment with active listening and communication, with informing the patient of planned actions prior to doing them, like physical exams, is key.

Trauma-Informed Care: Examples of Verbiage

Asking about Identity

• Begin by introducing yourself with your pronouns to create a safe environment for patient disclosure. Example: “Hello, I am Dr. Kara Jencks, and my pronouns are she/her. I am one of the gastroenterologists here at XYZ Clinic. How would you prefer to be addressed?”
• You can also wear a pronoun lapel pin or a pronoun button on your ID badge to indicate you are someone who your patient can be themselves around.
• The easiest way to obtain sexual orientation and gender identity is through intake forms. Below are examples of how to ask these questions on intake forms. It is important to offer the option to select more than one option when applicable and to opt out of answering if the patient is not comfortable answering these questions.

Sample Questions for Intake Forms

1. What is your sex assigned at birth? (Select one)

• Female
• Male
• Intersex
• Do not know
• Prefer not to disclose

2. What is your gender identity? (Select all that apply)

• Nonbinary
• Gender queer
• Woman
• Man
• Transwoman
• Transman
• Gender fluid
• Two-spirit
• Agender
• Intersex
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

3. What are your pronouns? (Select all that apply)

• They/them/theirs
• She/her/hers
• He/him/his
• Zie/zir/zirs
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

4. What is your sexual orientation? (Select all that apply)

• Bisexual
• Pansexual
• Queer
• Lesbian
• Gay
• Asexual
• Demisexual
• Heterosexual or straight
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

Screening for Trauma

While there are questionnaires that exist to ask about trauma history, if time allows, it can be helpful to screen verbally with the patient. See reference number 8, for additional prompts and actions to practice trauma-informed care.

• Example: “Many patients with gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders have experienced trauma in the past. We do our best to ensure we are keeping you as comfortable as possible while caring for you. Are you comfortable sharing this information? [if yes->] Do you have a history of trauma, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse? ... Have these experiences impacted the way in which you navigate your healthcare? ... Is there anything we can do to make you more comfortable today?”

General Physical Examination

Provide details for what you are going to do before you do it. Ask for permission for the examination. Here are two examples:

• “I would like to perform a physical exam to help better understand your symptoms. Is that okay with you?”
• “I would like to examine your abdomen with my stethoscope and my hands. Here is a sheet that we can use to help with your privacy. Please let me know if and when you feel any tenderness or pain.”

Rectal Physical Examination

Let the patient know why it would be helpful to perform a rectal exam, what the rectal exam will entail, and the benefits and risks to doing a rectal exam. An example follows:

• “Based on the symptoms you are describing, I think it would be helpful to perform a rectal exam to make sure you don’t have any fissures or hemorrhoids on the outside around the anus, any blockages or major issues inside the rectum, and to assess the strength and ability of your nerves and muscles or the pelvic floor to coordinate bowel movements. There are no risks aside from discomfort. If it is painful, and you would like me to stop, you tell me to stop, and I will stop right away. What questions do you have? Are we okay to proceed with the rectal exam?”
• “Please pull down your undergarments and your pants to either midthigh, your ankles, or all the way off, whatever your preference is, lie down on the left side on the exam table, and cover yourself with this sheet. In the meantime, I will be getting a chaperone to keep us safe and serve as a patient advocate during the procedure.”
• Upon returning to the exam room: “Here is Sara, who will be chaperoning today. Let myself or Sara know if you are uncomfortable or having pain during this exam. I will be lifting up the sheet to get a good look around the anus. [lifts up sheet] You will feel my hand helping to spread apart the buttocks. I am looking around the anus, and I do not see any fissures, hemorrhoids, or anything else concerning. Please squeeze in like you are trying to hold in gas. Please bear down like you are trying to have a bowel movement or let out gas. Okay, now you may feel some cold gel around the anus, and you will feel my finger go inside. Take a deep breath in. Do you feel any pain as I palpate? Please squeeze in like you are trying to hold in gas. Please bear down like you are trying to have a bowel movement or let out gas. I will be stopping the exam now.”
• You would then wash your hands and allow the patient to get dressed, and then disclose the exam findings and the rest of your visit.

Ilan H. Meyer coined the minority stress model when discussing mental health disorders in SGM patients in the early 2000s.⁹ With it being well known that DGBIs can overlap with (but are not necessarily caused by) mental health disorders, this model can easily apply to unify multiple individual and societal factors that can combine to result in disorders of brain-gut interaction (see Figure 1) in SGM communities. Let us keep this framework in mind when evaluating the following cases. 

 

Case Presentations

Case 1

A 56-year-old man (pronouns: he/him) assigned male sex at birth, who identifies as gay, presents to your gastroenterology clinic for treatment-refractory constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. It has impacted his sexual function. Outside hospital records report a normal colonoscopy 1 year ago and an unremarkable abdominal computerized tomography 4 months ago, aside from increased stool burden in the entire colon. He has tried to use enemas prior to sex, though these do not always help. Fiber-rich diet and fermentable food avoidance has not been successful. He is currently taking two capfuls of polyethylene glycol 3350 twice per day, as well as senna at night and continues to have a bowel movement every 2-3 days that is Bristol stool form scale type 1-2 unless he uses enemas. How do you counsel this patient about his IBS-C and rectal discomfort?

After assessing for sexual violence or other potential trauma-related factors, your digital rectal examination suggests that an anorectal defecatory disorder is less likely with normal relaxation and perineal movement. You recommend linaclotide. He notices improvement within 1 week, with improved comfort during anoreceptive sex. 

 

Case 2

A 30-year-old woman (pronouns: she/her) assigned male sex at birth who has sex with men underwent vaginoplasty 2 years ago and is referred to the gastroenterology clinic for fecal incontinence and diarrhea. On review of her anatomic inventory, her vaginoplasty was a penile inversion vaginoplasty (no intestinal tissue was used for creation), and her prostate was left intact. The vaginal vault was created in between the urethra and rectum, similar to the pelvic floor anatomy of a woman assigned female sex at birth. Blood, imaging, and endoscopic workup has been negative. She is also not taking any medications associated with diarrhea, only taking estrogen and spironolactone. The diarrhea is not daily, but when present, about once per week, can be up to 10 episodes per day, and she has a sense of incomplete evacuation regularly. She notes having a rectal exam in the past but is not sure if her pelvic floor muscles have ever been assessed. How do you manage this patient?

To complete her evaluation in the office, you perform a trauma-informed rectal exam which reveals a decreased resting anal sphincter tone and paradoxical defecatory maneuvers without tenderness to the puborectalis muscle. Augmentation of the squeeze is also weak. Given her pelvic floor related surgical history, her symptoms, and her rectal exam, you recommend anorectal manometry which is abnormal and send her for anorectal biofeedback pelvic floor physical therapy, which improves her symptoms significantly. 

Case 3

A 36-year-old woman (pronouns: she/her) assigned female sex at birth, who identifies as a lesbian, has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder and chronic nausea and vomiting that has begun to affect her quality of life. She notes the nausea and vomiting used to be managed well with evening cannabis gummies, though in the past 3 months, the nausea and vomiting has worsened, and she has lost 20 pounds as a result. As symptom predated cannabis usage, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) was less likely (an important point as she has been stigmatized during prior encounters for her cannabis usage). Her primary care physician recommended a gastroscopy which was normal, aside from some residual solid food material in the stomach. Her bowel movements are normal, and she doesn’t have other gastrointestinal symptoms. She and her wife are considering having a third child, so she is worried about medications that may affect pregnancy or breast-feeding. How do you manage her nausea and vomiting?

After validating her concerns and performing a trauma-informed physical exam and encounter, you recommend a 4-hour gastric emptying test with a standard radiolabeled egg meal. Her gastric emptying does reveal significantly delayed gastric emptying at 2 and 4 hours. You discuss the risks and benefits of lifestyle modification (smaller frequent meals), initiating medications (erythromycin and metoclopramide) or cessation of cannabis (despite low likelihood of CHS). Desiring to avoid starting medications around initiation of pregnancy, she opts for the dietary approach and cessation of cannabis. You see her at a follow-up visit in 6 months, and her nausea is now only once a month, and she is excited to begin planning for a pregnancy using assisted reproductive technology. 

 

Case 4

A 20-year-old nonbinary intersex individual (pronouns: he/they) (incorrectly assigned female at birth — is intersex with congenital adrenal hyperplasia) presents to the gastroenterology clinic with 8 years of heartburn, acid reflux, postprandial bloating, alternating diarrhea and constipation, nausea, and vomiting, complicated by avoidant restrictive food intake disorder. They have a history of bipolar II disorder with prior suicidal ideation. He has not yet had diagnostic workup as he previously had a bad encounter with a gastroenterologist where the gastroenterologist blamed his symptoms on his gender-affirming therapy, misgendered the patient, and told the patient their symptoms were “all in her [sic] head.”

You recognize that affirming their gender and using proper pronouns is the best first way to start rapport and help break the cycle of medicalized trauma. You then recommend a holistic work up with interdisciplinary management because of the complexity of his symptoms. For testing, you recommend a colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, a gastric emptying test with a 48-hour transit scintigraphy test, anorectal manometry, a dietitian referral, and a gastrointestinal psychology referral. Their anorectal manometry is consistent with an evacuation disorder. The rest of the work up is unremarkable. You diagnose them with anorectal pelvic floor dysfunction and functional dyspepsia, recommending biofeedback pelvic floor physical therapy, a proton-pump inhibitor, and neuromodulation in coordination with psychiatry and psychology to start with a plan for follow-up. The patient appreciates you for helping them and listening to their symptoms. 

 

Discussion

When approaching DGBIs in the SGM community, it is vital to validate their concerns and be inclusive with diagnostic and treatment modalities. The diagnostic tools and treatments for DGBI are not different for patients in the SGM community. Like with other patients, trauma-informed care should be utilized, particularly given higher rates of trauma and discrimination in this community. Importantly, their DGBI is not a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and hormone therapy is not the cause of their DGBI. Recommending cessation of gender-affirming care or recommending lifestyle measures against their identity is generally not appropriate or necessary. With increased scrutiny being a reality of SGM people’s existence in recent years, cultural humility is needed to establish the rapport necessary to treat DGBIs among members of the SGM communities.

Dr. Jencks (@karajencks) is based in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Vélez (@Chris_Velez_MD) is based in the division of gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Both authors do not have any conflicts of interest for this article.

References

1. Duong N et al. 2023 Apr. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00005-5.

2. Vélez C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001804.

3. Jones JM. Gallup. LGBTQ+ identification in U.S. now at 7.6%. 2024 Mar 13. https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx

4. Sperber AD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.014.

5. Wiley JW et al. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12706.

6. Labanski A et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104501.

7. Khlevner J et al. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2018.07.002.

8. Jagielski CH and Harer KN. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2022.07.012.

9. Meyer IH. Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

10. Mahurkar-Joshi S and Chang L. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00805.

Brief Introduction to the SGM Communities

The sexual and gender minority (SGM) communities (see Table 1), also termed “LGBTQIA+ community” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, plus — including two spirit) are historically minoritized with unique risks for inequities in gastrointestinal health outcomes.¹ These potential disparities remain largely uninvestigated because of continued systemic discrimination and inadequate collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data,² with the National Institutes of Health Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office (SGMRO) having been instructed to address these failures. There is increased SGM self-identification (7.1% of all people in the United States and 20.8% of generation Z).³ Given the high worldwide prevalence of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs)and the influence of biopsychosocial determinants of health in DGBI incidence,⁴ it becomes increasingly likely that research in DGBI-related factors in SGM people will be fruitful.

Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction and the Potential Minority Stress Link in SGM People

DGBIs are gastrointestinal conditions that occur because of brain-gut axis dysregulation. There is evidence that chronic stress and trauma negatively influence brain-gut interaction, which likely results in minority communities who face increased levels of trauma, stress, discrimination, and social injustice being at higher risk of DGBI development.^5-7 Given increased rates of trauma in the SGM community, practicing trauma-informed care is essential to increase patient comfort and decrease the chance of retraumatization in medical settings.⁸ Trauma-informed care focuses on how trauma influences a patient’s life and response to medical care. To practice trauma-informed care, screening for trauma when appropriate, actively creating a supportive environment with active listening and communication, with informing the patient of planned actions prior to doing them, like physical exams, is key.

Trauma-Informed Care: Examples of Verbiage

Asking about Identity

• Begin by introducing yourself with your pronouns to create a safe environment for patient disclosure. Example: “Hello, I am Dr. Kara Jencks, and my pronouns are she/her. I am one of the gastroenterologists here at XYZ Clinic. How would you prefer to be addressed?”
• You can also wear a pronoun lapel pin or a pronoun button on your ID badge to indicate you are someone who your patient can be themselves around.
• The easiest way to obtain sexual orientation and gender identity is through intake forms. Below are examples of how to ask these questions on intake forms. It is important to offer the option to select more than one option when applicable and to opt out of answering if the patient is not comfortable answering these questions.

Sample Questions for Intake Forms

1. What is your sex assigned at birth? (Select one)

• Female
• Male
• Intersex
• Do not know
• Prefer not to disclose

2. What is your gender identity? (Select all that apply)

• Nonbinary
• Gender queer
• Woman
• Man
• Transwoman
• Transman
• Gender fluid
• Two-spirit
• Agender
• Intersex
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

3. What are your pronouns? (Select all that apply)

• They/them/theirs
• She/her/hers
• He/him/his
• Zie/zir/zirs
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

4. What is your sexual orientation? (Select all that apply)

• Bisexual
• Pansexual
• Queer
• Lesbian
• Gay
• Asexual
• Demisexual
• Heterosexual or straight
• Other: type in response
• Prefer not to disclose

Screening for Trauma

While there are questionnaires that exist to ask about trauma history, if time allows, it can be helpful to screen verbally with the patient. See reference number 8, for additional prompts and actions to practice trauma-informed care.

• Example: “Many patients with gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders have experienced trauma in the past. We do our best to ensure we are keeping you as comfortable as possible while caring for you. Are you comfortable sharing this information? [if yes->] Do you have a history of trauma, including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse? ... Have these experiences impacted the way in which you navigate your healthcare? ... Is there anything we can do to make you more comfortable today?”

General Physical Examination

Provide details for what you are going to do before you do it. Ask for permission for the examination. Here are two examples:

• “I would like to perform a physical exam to help better understand your symptoms. Is that okay with you?”
• “I would like to examine your abdomen with my stethoscope and my hands. Here is a sheet that we can use to help with your privacy. Please let me know if and when you feel any tenderness or pain.”

Rectal Physical Examination

Let the patient know why it would be helpful to perform a rectal exam, what the rectal exam will entail, and the benefits and risks to doing a rectal exam. An example follows:

• “Based on the symptoms you are describing, I think it would be helpful to perform a rectal exam to make sure you don’t have any fissures or hemorrhoids on the outside around the anus, any blockages or major issues inside the rectum, and to assess the strength and ability of your nerves and muscles or the pelvic floor to coordinate bowel movements. There are no risks aside from discomfort. If it is painful, and you would like me to stop, you tell me to stop, and I will stop right away. What questions do you have? Are we okay to proceed with the rectal exam?”
• “Please pull down your undergarments and your pants to either midthigh, your ankles, or all the way off, whatever your preference is, lie down on the left side on the exam table, and cover yourself with this sheet. In the meantime, I will be getting a chaperone to keep us safe and serve as a patient advocate during the procedure.”
• Upon returning to the exam room: “Here is Sara, who will be chaperoning today. Let myself or Sara know if you are uncomfortable or having pain during this exam. I will be lifting up the sheet to get a good look around the anus. [lifts up sheet] You will feel my hand helping to spread apart the buttocks. I am looking around the anus, and I do not see any fissures, hemorrhoids, or anything else concerning. Please squeeze in like you are trying to hold in gas. Please bear down like you are trying to have a bowel movement or let out gas. Okay, now you may feel some cold gel around the anus, and you will feel my finger go inside. Take a deep breath in. Do you feel any pain as I palpate? Please squeeze in like you are trying to hold in gas. Please bear down like you are trying to have a bowel movement or let out gas. I will be stopping the exam now.”
• You would then wash your hands and allow the patient to get dressed, and then disclose the exam findings and the rest of your visit.

Ilan H. Meyer coined the minority stress model when discussing mental health disorders in SGM patients in the early 2000s.⁹ With it being well known that DGBIs can overlap with (but are not necessarily caused by) mental health disorders, this model can easily apply to unify multiple individual and societal factors that can combine to result in disorders of brain-gut interaction (see Figure 1) in SGM communities. Let us keep this framework in mind when evaluating the following cases. 

 

Case Presentations

Case 1

A 56-year-old man (pronouns: he/him) assigned male sex at birth, who identifies as gay, presents to your gastroenterology clinic for treatment-refractory constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. It has impacted his sexual function. Outside hospital records report a normal colonoscopy 1 year ago and an unremarkable abdominal computerized tomography 4 months ago, aside from increased stool burden in the entire colon. He has tried to use enemas prior to sex, though these do not always help. Fiber-rich diet and fermentable food avoidance has not been successful. He is currently taking two capfuls of polyethylene glycol 3350 twice per day, as well as senna at night and continues to have a bowel movement every 2-3 days that is Bristol stool form scale type 1-2 unless he uses enemas. How do you counsel this patient about his IBS-C and rectal discomfort?

After assessing for sexual violence or other potential trauma-related factors, your digital rectal examination suggests that an anorectal defecatory disorder is less likely with normal relaxation and perineal movement. You recommend linaclotide. He notices improvement within 1 week, with improved comfort during anoreceptive sex. 

 

Case 2

A 30-year-old woman (pronouns: she/her) assigned male sex at birth who has sex with men underwent vaginoplasty 2 years ago and is referred to the gastroenterology clinic for fecal incontinence and diarrhea. On review of her anatomic inventory, her vaginoplasty was a penile inversion vaginoplasty (no intestinal tissue was used for creation), and her prostate was left intact. The vaginal vault was created in between the urethra and rectum, similar to the pelvic floor anatomy of a woman assigned female sex at birth. Blood, imaging, and endoscopic workup has been negative. She is also not taking any medications associated with diarrhea, only taking estrogen and spironolactone. The diarrhea is not daily, but when present, about once per week, can be up to 10 episodes per day, and she has a sense of incomplete evacuation regularly. She notes having a rectal exam in the past but is not sure if her pelvic floor muscles have ever been assessed. How do you manage this patient?

To complete her evaluation in the office, you perform a trauma-informed rectal exam which reveals a decreased resting anal sphincter tone and paradoxical defecatory maneuvers without tenderness to the puborectalis muscle. Augmentation of the squeeze is also weak. Given her pelvic floor related surgical history, her symptoms, and her rectal exam, you recommend anorectal manometry which is abnormal and send her for anorectal biofeedback pelvic floor physical therapy, which improves her symptoms significantly. 

Case 3

A 36-year-old woman (pronouns: she/her) assigned female sex at birth, who identifies as a lesbian, has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder and chronic nausea and vomiting that has begun to affect her quality of life. She notes the nausea and vomiting used to be managed well with evening cannabis gummies, though in the past 3 months, the nausea and vomiting has worsened, and she has lost 20 pounds as a result. As symptom predated cannabis usage, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) was less likely (an important point as she has been stigmatized during prior encounters for her cannabis usage). Her primary care physician recommended a gastroscopy which was normal, aside from some residual solid food material in the stomach. Her bowel movements are normal, and she doesn’t have other gastrointestinal symptoms. She and her wife are considering having a third child, so she is worried about medications that may affect pregnancy or breast-feeding. How do you manage her nausea and vomiting?

After validating her concerns and performing a trauma-informed physical exam and encounter, you recommend a 4-hour gastric emptying test with a standard radiolabeled egg meal. Her gastric emptying does reveal significantly delayed gastric emptying at 2 and 4 hours. You discuss the risks and benefits of lifestyle modification (smaller frequent meals), initiating medications (erythromycin and metoclopramide) or cessation of cannabis (despite low likelihood of CHS). Desiring to avoid starting medications around initiation of pregnancy, she opts for the dietary approach and cessation of cannabis. You see her at a follow-up visit in 6 months, and her nausea is now only once a month, and she is excited to begin planning for a pregnancy using assisted reproductive technology. 

 

Case 4

A 20-year-old nonbinary intersex individual (pronouns: he/they) (incorrectly assigned female at birth — is intersex with congenital adrenal hyperplasia) presents to the gastroenterology clinic with 8 years of heartburn, acid reflux, postprandial bloating, alternating diarrhea and constipation, nausea, and vomiting, complicated by avoidant restrictive food intake disorder. They have a history of bipolar II disorder with prior suicidal ideation. He has not yet had diagnostic workup as he previously had a bad encounter with a gastroenterologist where the gastroenterologist blamed his symptoms on his gender-affirming therapy, misgendered the patient, and told the patient their symptoms were “all in her [sic] head.”

You recognize that affirming their gender and using proper pronouns is the best first way to start rapport and help break the cycle of medicalized trauma. You then recommend a holistic work up with interdisciplinary management because of the complexity of his symptoms. For testing, you recommend a colonoscopy, upper endoscopy, a gastric emptying test with a 48-hour transit scintigraphy test, anorectal manometry, a dietitian referral, and a gastrointestinal psychology referral. Their anorectal manometry is consistent with an evacuation disorder. The rest of the work up is unremarkable. You diagnose them with anorectal pelvic floor dysfunction and functional dyspepsia, recommending biofeedback pelvic floor physical therapy, a proton-pump inhibitor, and neuromodulation in coordination with psychiatry and psychology to start with a plan for follow-up. The patient appreciates you for helping them and listening to their symptoms. 

 

Discussion

When approaching DGBIs in the SGM community, it is vital to validate their concerns and be inclusive with diagnostic and treatment modalities. The diagnostic tools and treatments for DGBI are not different for patients in the SGM community. Like with other patients, trauma-informed care should be utilized, particularly given higher rates of trauma and discrimination in this community. Importantly, their DGBI is not a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and hormone therapy is not the cause of their DGBI. Recommending cessation of gender-affirming care or recommending lifestyle measures against their identity is generally not appropriate or necessary. With increased scrutiny being a reality of SGM people’s existence in recent years, cultural humility is needed to establish the rapport necessary to treat DGBIs among members of the SGM communities.

Dr. Jencks (@karajencks) is based in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Dr. Vélez (@Chris_Velez_MD) is based in the division of gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. Both authors do not have any conflicts of interest for this article.

References

1. Duong N et al. 2023 Apr. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(23)00005-5.

2. Vélez C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Jun. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001804.

3. Jones JM. Gallup. LGBTQ+ identification in U.S. now at 7.6%. 2024 Mar 13. https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx

4. Sperber AD et al. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.014.

5. Wiley JW et al. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016 Jan. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12706.

6. Labanski A et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104501.

7. Khlevner J et al. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2018.07.002.

8. Jagielski CH and Harer KN. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2022.07.012.

9. Meyer IH. Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

10. Mahurkar-Joshi S and Chang L. Front Psychiatry. 2020 Aug. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00805.

Random biopsy during colonoscopy improves dysplasia detection among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but level of benefit depends on equipment and disease characteristics, according to a recent review and meta-analysis.

Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.

“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”

The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.

The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.

The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.

Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.

PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.

“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Random biopsy during colonoscopy improves dysplasia detection among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but level of benefit depends on equipment and disease characteristics, according to a recent review and meta-analysis.

Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.

“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”

The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.

The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.

The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.

Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.

PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.

“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Random biopsy during colonoscopy improves dysplasia detection among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but level of benefit depends on equipment and disease characteristics, according to a recent review and meta-analysis.

Random biopsies collected in studies after 2011 provided limited additional yield, suggesting that high-definition equipment alone may be sufficient to achieve a high detection rate, lead author Li Gao, MD, of Air Force Medical University, Xi’an, China, and colleagues reported. In contrast, patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) consistently benefited from random biopsy, offering clearer support for use in this subgroup.

“Random biopsy has been proposed as a strategy that may detect dysplastic lesions that cannot be identified endoscopically, thus minimizing the occurrence of missed colitis-associated dysplasia during colonoscopy,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. However, the role of random biopsies in colonoscopic surveillance for patients with IBD remains a topic of ongoing debate.”

The SCENIC guidelines remain inconclusive on the role of random biopsy in IBD surveillance, the investigators noted, while other guidelines recommend random biopsy with high-definition white light endoscopy, but not chromoendoscopy. 

The present meta-analysis aimed to characterize the impact of random biopsy on dysplasia detection. The investigators aggregated prospective and retrospective studies published in English through September 2023, all of which compared random biopsy with other surveillance techniques and reported the proportion of dysplasia detected exclusively through random biopsy. 

“To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and meta-analysis was the first comprehensive summary of the additional yield of random biopsy during colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with IBD,” Dr. Gao and colleagues noted.

The final dataset comprised 37 studies with 9,051 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surveillance for IBD. Patients had diverse baseline characteristics, including different proportions of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, as well as varying prevalence of PSC, a known risk factor for colorectal neoplasia.

The pooled additional yield of random biopsy was 10.34% in per-patient analysis and 16.20% in per-lesion analysis, meaning that approximately 1 in 10 patients and 1 in 6 lesions were detected exclusively through random biopsy. Despite these benefits, detection rates were relatively low: 1.31% per patient and 2.82% per lesion.

Subgroup analyses showed a decline in random biopsy additional yield over time. Studies conducted before 2011 reported an additional yield of 14.43% in per-patient analysis, compared to just 0.42% in studies conducted after 2011. This decline coincided with the widespread adoption of high-definition endoscopy.

PSC status strongly influenced detection rates throughout the study period. In patients without PSC (0%-10% PSC prevalence), the additional yield of random biopsy was 4.83% in per-patient analysis and 11.23% in per-lesion analysis. In studies where all patients had PSC, the additional yield increased dramatically to 56.05% and 45.22%, respectively.

“These findings highlight the incremental benefits of random biopsy and provide valuable insights into the management of endoscopic surveillance in patients with IBD,” the investigators wrote. “Considering the decreased additional yields in studies initiated after 2011, and the influence of PSC, endoscopy centers lacking full high-definition equipment should consider incorporating random biopsy in the standard colonoscopy surveillance for IBD patients, especially in those with PSC.”This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province, and the Nanchang High-Level Scientific and Technological Innovation Talents “Double Hundred Plan” project. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study found that despite their growing presence in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research, women investigators were inequitably represented at scientific presentations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The study was published in Gastroenterology  and also appeared concurrently in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology .

Indeed, among gastrointestinal (GI) subspecialties, IBD was selected by 26.5% of all women GI physicians, compared with 18.9% of all their male counterparts, according to a 2021 study.

Thus, conference organizers and pharmaceutical companies should promote speaker diversity by seeking out women presenters, according to a group led by Maria A. Quintero, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology at the Leonard Miller School of Medicine at the University of Miami, Florida.

“Seeing more women IBD leaders at the podium will inspire other women to engage in IBD clinical research,” Quintero and associates wrote.

In addition, women investigators should be included at every stage of the study process in industry-sponsored research, both as principal investigators and members of steering committees involved in study design, the authors said. Training more women clinical trial investigators in the IBD setting is another way forward.

In another recommendation, pharmaceutical companies need to be more transparent about the way first and senior authors on IBD studies are chosen because in the past the principal investigator who enrolled the most patients became the first author of the study. “That is no longer the case. However, it remains unclear whether all investigators have an equal opportunity to be the first or senior author,” Quintero and associates wrote.

The Study

The investigators analyzed IBD abstracts of presentations at five conferences for two large GI meetings, Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) in the period 2021-2023.

They asked whether women investigators were as likely as their male counterparts to present abstracts based on results from industry-supported clinical trials. As a point of comparison, they also looked for possible gender differences in invited-speaker vs investigator-initiated IBD sessions. To do this, they examined all IBD-related abstracts from the two meetings, identified the lead author of each oral presentation, and divided them into women or men. They also assessed whether the presentation was pharma-sponsored, investigator-initiated, or presented by an invited speaker.

Among the study findings: 

• Across categories there were 178 invited lectures, 336 investigator-submitted presentations, and 150 industry-supported presentations for UEG (2021, 2022, and 2023) and DDW (2022 and 2023).
• The gender gap for men vs women was significant for industry-supported oral presentations (78.7% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and for invited lectures (67.4% vs 32.6%; P < .0001) — but not for investigator-submitted abstracts (49.7% vs 50.3%; P = .91).
• The gender gap for industry-supported abstracts, however, was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted abstracts (57.3% vs 0.6%; P < .0001) and larger than for invited lectures (57.3% vs 34.9%; P = .09).
• The gender gap for invited lectures was significantly larger than for investigator-submitted oral presentations (34.9% vs 0.6%; P = .0009).

Why the Discordance?

This disparity may be due to the paucity of women investigators on steering committees for clinical trials. “Although the number of women doing IBD research continues to increase, then number of women senior investigators is still smaller than the number of men senior investigators,” the researchers wrote. “Ideally, there would be transparency in terms of the metrics used by pharma to choose who will be a presenting author and more intentional recruitment of women investigators to steering committees.”

Commenting on the study but not involved in it, internist Shannon M. Ruzycki, MD, MPH, an assistant professor in the Cumming School of Medicine at the University of Calgary Medical Centre in Alberta, Canada, said the findings are not surprising. “In nearly every setting where gender differences are studied in academic medicine, women are found to be disadvantaged compared to men. These differences are not attributable to skill, merit, or career attainment, but rather appear to be arbitrary and due to biases. They add up across time and likely contribute to the larger differences we see between men and women in promotion, compensation, and awards.”

Ruzycki, lead author of a study of women presenters at medical conferences, noted that differences in gender representation in academia, academic medicine, and clinical trials are similar “because the underlying causes are similar.” On the positive side, she added, conference planning committees are using strategies to reduce bias in how presenters are selected by masking the names and/or institutions of those are submitting abstracts and are being more intentional in inviting a diverse panel of qualified speakers.

“However, one strategy alone is unlikely to address such an insidious problem that affects all parts of selection,” she said. “For example, if pharmaceutical companies believe that men presenters are seen as more authoritative or knowledgeable than women presenters, they will select men to be the first author on submitted abstracts which could deprive these opportunities for deserving women candidates.”

Ruzycki attributed the imbalance to systems (academia, medicine, science) designed by men who lack empathy for the experiences of women. “In the same way you can never really understand how exhausting it is to be a parent until you become a parent or how challenging it can be to have a physical disability until you break a leg and have to navigate the world on crutches, it is really challenging for men to understand how cold and hostile these settings can be for women.”

Many of the things that make conferences, academia, and medicine so challenging for women have straightforward solutions, however, Ruzycki added. Onsite childcare, scrubs that fit women, operating room equipment that is ergonomic for women surgeons — even more washroom stalls would help. “If only we listened and cared about things that didn’t directly impact us.”

This study was supported by the 2023 Travel Grant from the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. One coauthor serves as a consultant or on advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celsius Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Pharmaceutical. She is a teacher, lecturer, and speaker for Janssen and Takeda Pharmaceuticals. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts. Ruzycki had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who ate more plant-based and less meat-based foods — whether on a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diet — had more favorable microbiome compositions than those who did not follow a healthy dietary pattern, new research suggested.

For example, red meat was a strong driver of omnivore microbiomes, with corresponding signature microbes that are negatively correlated with host cardiometabolic health.

In contrast, the signature microbes found in vegans’ gut microbiomes were correlated with favorable cardiometabolic markers and were enriched in omnivores who ate more plant-based foods.

“From the viewpoint of the impact of diet on the gut microbiome, what seems to be more important is the diversity of healthy plant-based foods that are consumed,” principal author Nicola Segata, PhD, University of Trento in Italy, said in an interview. “Whether this comes within a vegan or an omnivore diet is less crucial, as long as there is no specific overconsumption of unhealthy food categories, such as red meat.”

Excluding broad categories of foods also can have consequences, he added. “For example, we saw that the exclusion of dairy fermented foods is associated with decreased presence of potentially probiotic microbes that are constitutive of such foods. Avoiding meat or dairy products does not necessarily have a positive effect if it does not come with a variety of quality plant-based products.”

The study was published online in Nature Microbiology.

 

Diet Tied to Microbial Signature

The researchers analyzed biological samples from 21,561 individuals across five multi-national cohorts to map how differences in diet patterns (omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan) are reflected in gut microbiomes.

They found that the three diet patterns are highly distinguishable by their microbial profiles and that each diet has corresponding unique signature microbes, including those tied to digestion of specific types of food and sometimes those derived from food itself.

The microbiomes of omnivores had an increased presence of bacteria associated with meat digestion, such as Alistipes putredinis, which is involved in protein fermentation. Omnivores also had more bacteria associated with both inflammatory bowel disease and increased colon cancer risk, such as Ruminococcus torques and Bilophila wadsworthia.

The microbiomes of vegans had an abundance of bacteria involved in fiber fermentation, such as several species of Bacteroides and Firmicutes phyla, which help produce short-chain fatty acids. These compounds have beneficial effects on gut health by reducing inflammation and helping to maintain a better homeostatic balance between an individual’s metabolism and immune system.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans was the presence in vegetarians’ microbiomes of Streptococcus thermophilus, a bacterium found mainly in dairy products and used in the production of yogurt.

Dietary factors within each diet pattern, such as the amount of plant-based food, shape the microbiome more than the type of diet and are important for gut health, according to the authors. For example, by eating more plant-based foods, people with an omnivorous diet can bring the proportion of beneficial signature microbes in their microbiomes more in line with the levels in people who are vegan or vegetarian.

“Since our data showed that omnivores on average ingest significantly fewer healthy plant-based foods than vegetarians or vegans, optimizing the quality of omnivore diets by increasing dietary plant diversity could lead to better gut health,” they wrote.

The ultimate goal, Segata said, is “a precision nutrition approach that recommends foods based on the configuration of the microbiome of patients and of the aspects of the microbiome one wants to enhance. We are not there yet, but it is nonetheless important to know which foods are usually boosting which types of members of the gut microbiome.”

His team is currently analyzing changes in the gut microbiome induced by diet changes among thousands of participants in various cohorts.

“This is one of the next steps toward unraveling causality along the diet-microbiome-health axis, together with the cultivation of specific microbiome members of interest for potential prebiotic and probiotic strategies,” he said.

 

Conventional Dietary Advice for Now

The findings are consistent with those of previous studies, Jack Gilbert, MD, director of the Microbiome and Metagenomics Center at the University of California, San Diego, and president of Applied Microbiology International, Cambridge, England, said in an interview.

“Future research needs to focus on whether the gut microbial signature can predict those that develop cardiovascular disease in each cohort — ie, the n-of-1 studies, whereby a vegan develops cardiovascular disease, or a carnivore does not,” said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

With more data, he said, “we can also start examining these trends over time to understand what might be going on with these ‘oddballs.’ ”

“There is not much you can do with the ‘eat a healthy balanced diet’ routine,” he noted. “If I got a microbiome signature, I could potentially tell you what to eat to optimize your blood glucose trends and your lipid panels but not to handle long-term disease risk, yet. So sticking with the guideline-recommended dietary advice seems best, until we can provide more nuanced advice for the patient.

“Importantly, I would also like to see time-resolved data,” he added. “Signatures can fluctuate over time, even over days, and so collecting a few weeks of stool samples would help us to better align the microbiome signatures to clinical endpoints.”

Segata is a consultant to and receives options from ZOE. Gilbert is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Holobiome, BiomeSense, EcoBiomics Canadian Research Program, MASTER EU, Sun Genomics, and Oath; the editorial advisory board for The Scientist; and the external advisory board for the Binational Early Asthma & Microbiome Study. He is also an adviser for Bened Life.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who ate more plant-based and less meat-based foods — whether on a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diet — had more favorable microbiome compositions than those who did not follow a healthy dietary pattern, new research suggested.

For example, red meat was a strong driver of omnivore microbiomes, with corresponding signature microbes that are negatively correlated with host cardiometabolic health.

In contrast, the signature microbes found in vegans’ gut microbiomes were correlated with favorable cardiometabolic markers and were enriched in omnivores who ate more plant-based foods.

“From the viewpoint of the impact of diet on the gut microbiome, what seems to be more important is the diversity of healthy plant-based foods that are consumed,” principal author Nicola Segata, PhD, University of Trento in Italy, said in an interview. “Whether this comes within a vegan or an omnivore diet is less crucial, as long as there is no specific overconsumption of unhealthy food categories, such as red meat.”

Excluding broad categories of foods also can have consequences, he added. “For example, we saw that the exclusion of dairy fermented foods is associated with decreased presence of potentially probiotic microbes that are constitutive of such foods. Avoiding meat or dairy products does not necessarily have a positive effect if it does not come with a variety of quality plant-based products.”

The study was published online in Nature Microbiology.

 

Diet Tied to Microbial Signature

The researchers analyzed biological samples from 21,561 individuals across five multi-national cohorts to map how differences in diet patterns (omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan) are reflected in gut microbiomes.

They found that the three diet patterns are highly distinguishable by their microbial profiles and that each diet has corresponding unique signature microbes, including those tied to digestion of specific types of food and sometimes those derived from food itself.

The microbiomes of omnivores had an increased presence of bacteria associated with meat digestion, such as Alistipes putredinis, which is involved in protein fermentation. Omnivores also had more bacteria associated with both inflammatory bowel disease and increased colon cancer risk, such as Ruminococcus torques and Bilophila wadsworthia.

The microbiomes of vegans had an abundance of bacteria involved in fiber fermentation, such as several species of Bacteroides and Firmicutes phyla, which help produce short-chain fatty acids. These compounds have beneficial effects on gut health by reducing inflammation and helping to maintain a better homeostatic balance between an individual’s metabolism and immune system.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans was the presence in vegetarians’ microbiomes of Streptococcus thermophilus, a bacterium found mainly in dairy products and used in the production of yogurt.

Dietary factors within each diet pattern, such as the amount of plant-based food, shape the microbiome more than the type of diet and are important for gut health, according to the authors. For example, by eating more plant-based foods, people with an omnivorous diet can bring the proportion of beneficial signature microbes in their microbiomes more in line with the levels in people who are vegan or vegetarian.

“Since our data showed that omnivores on average ingest significantly fewer healthy plant-based foods than vegetarians or vegans, optimizing the quality of omnivore diets by increasing dietary plant diversity could lead to better gut health,” they wrote.

The ultimate goal, Segata said, is “a precision nutrition approach that recommends foods based on the configuration of the microbiome of patients and of the aspects of the microbiome one wants to enhance. We are not there yet, but it is nonetheless important to know which foods are usually boosting which types of members of the gut microbiome.”

His team is currently analyzing changes in the gut microbiome induced by diet changes among thousands of participants in various cohorts.

“This is one of the next steps toward unraveling causality along the diet-microbiome-health axis, together with the cultivation of specific microbiome members of interest for potential prebiotic and probiotic strategies,” he said.

 

Conventional Dietary Advice for Now

The findings are consistent with those of previous studies, Jack Gilbert, MD, director of the Microbiome and Metagenomics Center at the University of California, San Diego, and president of Applied Microbiology International, Cambridge, England, said in an interview.

“Future research needs to focus on whether the gut microbial signature can predict those that develop cardiovascular disease in each cohort — ie, the n-of-1 studies, whereby a vegan develops cardiovascular disease, or a carnivore does not,” said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

With more data, he said, “we can also start examining these trends over time to understand what might be going on with these ‘oddballs.’ ”

“There is not much you can do with the ‘eat a healthy balanced diet’ routine,” he noted. “If I got a microbiome signature, I could potentially tell you what to eat to optimize your blood glucose trends and your lipid panels but not to handle long-term disease risk, yet. So sticking with the guideline-recommended dietary advice seems best, until we can provide more nuanced advice for the patient.

“Importantly, I would also like to see time-resolved data,” he added. “Signatures can fluctuate over time, even over days, and so collecting a few weeks of stool samples would help us to better align the microbiome signatures to clinical endpoints.”

Segata is a consultant to and receives options from ZOE. Gilbert is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Holobiome, BiomeSense, EcoBiomics Canadian Research Program, MASTER EU, Sun Genomics, and Oath; the editorial advisory board for The Scientist; and the external advisory board for the Binational Early Asthma & Microbiome Study. He is also an adviser for Bened Life.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who ate more plant-based and less meat-based foods — whether on a vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous diet — had more favorable microbiome compositions than those who did not follow a healthy dietary pattern, new research suggested.

For example, red meat was a strong driver of omnivore microbiomes, with corresponding signature microbes that are negatively correlated with host cardiometabolic health.

In contrast, the signature microbes found in vegans’ gut microbiomes were correlated with favorable cardiometabolic markers and were enriched in omnivores who ate more plant-based foods.

“From the viewpoint of the impact of diet on the gut microbiome, what seems to be more important is the diversity of healthy plant-based foods that are consumed,” principal author Nicola Segata, PhD, University of Trento in Italy, said in an interview. “Whether this comes within a vegan or an omnivore diet is less crucial, as long as there is no specific overconsumption of unhealthy food categories, such as red meat.”

Excluding broad categories of foods also can have consequences, he added. “For example, we saw that the exclusion of dairy fermented foods is associated with decreased presence of potentially probiotic microbes that are constitutive of such foods. Avoiding meat or dairy products does not necessarily have a positive effect if it does not come with a variety of quality plant-based products.”

The study was published online in Nature Microbiology.

 

Diet Tied to Microbial Signature

The researchers analyzed biological samples from 21,561 individuals across five multi-national cohorts to map how differences in diet patterns (omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan) are reflected in gut microbiomes.

They found that the three diet patterns are highly distinguishable by their microbial profiles and that each diet has corresponding unique signature microbes, including those tied to digestion of specific types of food and sometimes those derived from food itself.

The microbiomes of omnivores had an increased presence of bacteria associated with meat digestion, such as Alistipes putredinis, which is involved in protein fermentation. Omnivores also had more bacteria associated with both inflammatory bowel disease and increased colon cancer risk, such as Ruminococcus torques and Bilophila wadsworthia.

The microbiomes of vegans had an abundance of bacteria involved in fiber fermentation, such as several species of Bacteroides and Firmicutes phyla, which help produce short-chain fatty acids. These compounds have beneficial effects on gut health by reducing inflammation and helping to maintain a better homeostatic balance between an individual’s metabolism and immune system.

The main difference between vegetarians and vegans was the presence in vegetarians’ microbiomes of Streptococcus thermophilus, a bacterium found mainly in dairy products and used in the production of yogurt.

Dietary factors within each diet pattern, such as the amount of plant-based food, shape the microbiome more than the type of diet and are important for gut health, according to the authors. For example, by eating more plant-based foods, people with an omnivorous diet can bring the proportion of beneficial signature microbes in their microbiomes more in line with the levels in people who are vegan or vegetarian.

“Since our data showed that omnivores on average ingest significantly fewer healthy plant-based foods than vegetarians or vegans, optimizing the quality of omnivore diets by increasing dietary plant diversity could lead to better gut health,” they wrote.

The ultimate goal, Segata said, is “a precision nutrition approach that recommends foods based on the configuration of the microbiome of patients and of the aspects of the microbiome one wants to enhance. We are not there yet, but it is nonetheless important to know which foods are usually boosting which types of members of the gut microbiome.”

His team is currently analyzing changes in the gut microbiome induced by diet changes among thousands of participants in various cohorts.

“This is one of the next steps toward unraveling causality along the diet-microbiome-health axis, together with the cultivation of specific microbiome members of interest for potential prebiotic and probiotic strategies,” he said.

 

Conventional Dietary Advice for Now

The findings are consistent with those of previous studies, Jack Gilbert, MD, director of the Microbiome and Metagenomics Center at the University of California, San Diego, and president of Applied Microbiology International, Cambridge, England, said in an interview.

“Future research needs to focus on whether the gut microbial signature can predict those that develop cardiovascular disease in each cohort — ie, the n-of-1 studies, whereby a vegan develops cardiovascular disease, or a carnivore does not,” said Gilbert, who was not involved in the study.

With more data, he said, “we can also start examining these trends over time to understand what might be going on with these ‘oddballs.’ ”

“There is not much you can do with the ‘eat a healthy balanced diet’ routine,” he noted. “If I got a microbiome signature, I could potentially tell you what to eat to optimize your blood glucose trends and your lipid panels but not to handle long-term disease risk, yet. So sticking with the guideline-recommended dietary advice seems best, until we can provide more nuanced advice for the patient.

“Importantly, I would also like to see time-resolved data,” he added. “Signatures can fluctuate over time, even over days, and so collecting a few weeks of stool samples would help us to better align the microbiome signatures to clinical endpoints.”

Segata is a consultant to and receives options from ZOE. Gilbert is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Holobiome, BiomeSense, EcoBiomics Canadian Research Program, MASTER EU, Sun Genomics, and Oath; the editorial advisory board for The Scientist; and the external advisory board for the Binational Early Asthma & Microbiome Study. He is also an adviser for Bened Life.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.