IBD & Intestinal Disorders

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.

Clinicians should be aware of how to manage certain gastrointestinal (GI) and liver conditions associated with pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and acute fatty liver of pregnancy, according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.  

 

“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.  

“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”  

The update was published online in Gastroenterology.  

 

Pregnancy-Related Concerns

The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.

Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.  

At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.  

Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.  

Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.  

For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.  

For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.  

For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.  

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.  

Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.  

In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.  

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.  

Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal. 

Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice

Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”  

Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.  

“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”  

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of how to manage certain gastrointestinal (GI) and liver conditions associated with pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and acute fatty liver of pregnancy, according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.  

 

“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.  

“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”  

The update was published online in Gastroenterology.  

 

Pregnancy-Related Concerns

The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.

Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.  

At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.  

Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.  

Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.  

For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.  

For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.  

For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.  

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.  

Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.  

In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.  

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.  

Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal. 

Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice

Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”  

Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.  

“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”  

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of how to manage certain gastrointestinal (GI) and liver conditions associated with pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, and acute fatty liver of pregnancy, according to a clinical practice update (CPU) from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Notably, procedures, medications, or other interventions intended to improve maternal health shouldn’t be withheld solely because the patient is pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, treatments should be personalized based on a risk-benefit assessment.  

 

“Pregnancy causes significant physiological changes that can affect the GI tract and liver function. Some common conditions — such as nausea, vomiting, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and constipation — may be exacerbated, and underlying GI or liver diseases can behave differently during pregnancy,” said lead author Shivangi Kothari, MD, associate professor of medicine and associate director of endoscopy at the University of Rochester Medical Center and Strong Memorial Hospital, both in Rochester, New York.  

“These conditions can pose significant risks to both the mother and fetus, and their management requires a specialized, updated approach,” she said. “This clinical practice update stresses the need for coordinated, multidisciplinary care among obstetricians, gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and maternal-and-fetal medicine experts to ensure optimal outcomes, particularly in complex or high-risk cases.”  

The update was published online in Gastroenterology.  

 

Pregnancy-Related Concerns

The best path to optimal outcomes is to start early, the authors wrote. Before pregnancy, patients should consider preconception and contraceptive care counseling with a multidisciplinary team that can address GI and liver issues, especially among reproductive-age people who want to become pregnant.

Once pregnant, though, patients shouldn’t be deterred from receiving procedures, medications, or interventions just because they’re pregnant, the authors wrote. Instead, taking an individual approach will help clinicians decide what to do based on the risks and benefits.  

At the beginning of pregnancy, early treatment of nausea and vomiting can reduce progression to hyperemesis gravidarum, the authors wrote. Stepwise treatment can include vitamin B6, doxylamine, hydration, and adequate nutrition, followed by ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and intravenous glucocorticoids in moderate to severe cases.  

Constipation may also pose a problem because of hormonal, physiological, and medication-related changes. Treatment options can include dietary fiber, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.  

Patients with certain conditions — such as complex inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), advanced cirrhosis, or liver transplant — should work with a multidisciplinary team to coordinate birth, preferably in a tertiary care center, the authors wrote.  

For patients with IBD, clinical remission helps to improve pregnancy outcomes, including before conception, during pregnancy, and throughout the postpartum period. Biologic agents should be used during pregnancy and postpartum, though methotrexate, thalidomide, and ozanimod should be stopped at least 6 months before conception.  

For patients with chronic hepatitis B, serum hepatitis B virus DNA and liver biochemical levels should be tested. Patients with a serum level > 200,000 IU/mL during the third trimester should be considered for treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.  

For patients on immunosuppressive therapy for chronic liver diseases or after liver transplantation, therapy should continue at the lowest effective dose. However, mycophenolate mofetil shouldn’t be administered during pregnancy.  

Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy may be diagnosed during the second or third trimester based on pruritus and a serum bile acid level > 10 μmol/L. Treatment should include oral ursodeoxycholic acid, with a total daily dose of 10-15 mg/kg.  

Other pregnancy-related liver diseases — such as pre-eclampsia; hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets syndrome; and acute fatty liver of pregnancy — require careful birth planning and evaluation for possible liver transplantation. For certain high-risk patients, daily aspirin should start at week 12 of gestation.  

In addition, elective endoscopic procedures should wait until after birth, and nonemergent but necessary procedures should be performed during the second trimester. Patients with cirrhosis should undergo evaluation for esophageal varices, and upper endoscopy should happen during the second trimester to guide beta-blocker therapy or endoscopic variceal litigation.  

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be performed for urgent indications, such as choledocholithiasis, cholangitis, and some gallstone pancreatitis cases, ideally during the second trimester.  

Cholecystectomy is considered safe during pregnancy, with a laparoscopic approach as the standard of care regardless of trimester, though the second trimester is ideal. 

Pregnancy-Related Updates in Practice

Ultimately, clinicians should familiarize themselves with the best practice advice to feel comfortable when counseling and managing pregnancy-related concerns, especially high-risk patients, said Eugenia Shmidt, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition, and founder of the IBD Preconception and Pregnancy Planning Clinic at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

“Half of all patients with GI and liver disease are women, and oftentimes, they don’t have appropriate guidance regarding reproductive health in the context of their disease,” she said. “There exists a very large knowledge gap in this area, particularly because most clinical trials exclude pregnant people.”  

Most importantly, the advice statements can guide practitioners on how to help pregnant patients make informed reproductive decisions, she added.  

“This CPU makes it clear that preconception counseling and multidisciplinary care are key in optimizing reproductive health, regardless of the underlying GI or liver disease,” Shmidt said. “GI practitioners should be counseling women well in advance of pregnancy and recruiting all relevant stakeholders as early as possible, even prior to conception. This way, pregnancy care is not reactive, but instead proactive.”  

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Kothari and Shmidt reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

International researchers have uncovered potentially diagnostic gut microbiome signatures and metabolic pathways associated specifically with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD).

Targeted droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)‒based quantification of bacterial species led to convenient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnostic assays that “are sufficiently robust, sensitive and cost-effective for clinical application,” the investigators wrote in a recent study published in Nature Medicine.

“Although traditional modalities used for diagnosis of IBD, including colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging, are well established, the inconvenience of bowel preparation and radiation represents relevant concerns,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview. “Furthermore, existing serological and fecal markers indicate inflammation but lack specificity for IBD.”

Identifying reproducible bacterial biomarkers specific to CD and IBD should enable precise and personalized approaches to detection and management.

As a starting point, the researchers hypothesized that changes in the gut microbiome of IBD patients may reflect underlying functional associations, if not causes, of the disease, said Ng, who is also director of Hong Kong’s Microbiota I-Center (MagIC). “Unlike inflammation, which is a manifestation of the disease, the gut microbiome may serve as a more reliable biomarker less affected by the disease’s fluctuating cycle.”

The study findings showed that bacterial markers remain consistent even during the inactive disease phase. Additionally, the results are reproducible across different populations, suggesting that these markers are true indicators of IBD, she added. “With a better performance than the commonly used noninvasive test, fecal calprotectin, we believe the test will be a valuable addition to clinician’s toolbox and a strong option for first-line diagnostics.”

 

The Study

The group used metagenomic data from 5979 fecal samples from persons with and without IBD from different regions (including the United States) and of different ethnicities. Identifying several microbiota alterations in IBD, they selected bacterial species to construct diagnostic models for UC (n = 10) and CD (n = 9). Some species were deleted and some were enriched in IBD.

Metagenomic findings confirmed, for example, enrichments of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in the guts of CD patients, with adherent invasive E coli present in more than half of these. This pathogen has been linked to mucosal dysbiosis and functional alteration, and has been associated with disease activity and endoscopic recurrence following surgery. B fragilis may induce intestinal inflammation through toxin production.

The researchers also identified a new oral bacterium, Actinomyces species oral taxon 181, which was significantly enriched in stool samples with both CD and UC.

The diagnostic models achieved areas under the curve of >.90 for distinguishing IBD patients from controls in the discovery cohort and maintained satisfactory performance in transethnic validation cohorts from eight populations.

Ng’s group further developed a multiplex droplet digital PCR test targeting selected IBD-associated bacterial species. Models based on this test showed numerically higher performance than fecal calprotectin in discriminating UC and CD samples from controls. These universally IBD-associated bacteria suggest the potential applicability of a biomarker panel for noninvasive diagnosis.

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called it “a very important study that highlights the potential role of a microbiome-based diagnostic for screening. It could have application in a wide variety of settings and is very promising.”

More work, however, is necessary to clarify such testing’s role. “The study’s validation in independent cohorts is an important strength, but the sizes of those cohorts are still quite small,” he said in an interview. “It’s important to understand its accuracy across a spectrum of IBD phenotypes and severity.”

Furthermore, endoscopic evaluation at diagnosis is important to establish severity and extent of disease. “It’s not clear this diagnostic biomarker can help supplant that role. But I see potential value to it for patients for whom we may not be considering endoscopy yet but who would like to risk-stratify.”

 

The Test’s Future

“We expect to see a real shift in clinical practice,” Ng said. “As a cost-effective test, it will help millions of people dealing with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms get the diagnoses they need.” Because the bacterial test can identify IBD at an inactive stage, it has the potential for early diagnosis. “This capability allows clinicians to initiate treatment sooner, helping to prevent progression from subclinical to clinical stages of the disease.”

The next research steps involve prospective studies with a larger and more diverse group of patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms. “This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of bacterial biomarkers in real-world populations,” she said. In vivo and in vitro experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights into the causal role of these bacteria and metabolic dysregulations in the pathogenesis of IBD, as well as their future clinical utility in disease monitoring and predicting treatment response.

Her group plans to work with the biotech industry and regulatory agencies to transform these biomarkers into an approved test kit. “The rollout is likely to be gradual, but we’re optimistic that supportive international and national guidelines will be developed and will pave the way for widespread implementation.”

This study was supported by various academic, charitable, and governmental research-funding bodies, including the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Ng has served as an advisory board member or speaker for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, Tillotts, Menarini, and Takeda. She has received research grants through her institutions from Olympus, Ferring, and AbbVie and is a founding member and shareholder of GenieBiome. She receives patent royalties through her institutions, including MagIC, which holds patents on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of the microbiome in IBD. Several co-authors reported various relationships, including patent holding, with private-sector companies. Ananthakrishnan had no relevant competing interests.

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

International researchers have uncovered potentially diagnostic gut microbiome signatures and metabolic pathways associated specifically with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD).

Targeted droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)‒based quantification of bacterial species led to convenient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnostic assays that “are sufficiently robust, sensitive and cost-effective for clinical application,” the investigators wrote in a recent study published in Nature Medicine.

“Although traditional modalities used for diagnosis of IBD, including colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging, are well established, the inconvenience of bowel preparation and radiation represents relevant concerns,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview. “Furthermore, existing serological and fecal markers indicate inflammation but lack specificity for IBD.”

Identifying reproducible bacterial biomarkers specific to CD and IBD should enable precise and personalized approaches to detection and management.

As a starting point, the researchers hypothesized that changes in the gut microbiome of IBD patients may reflect underlying functional associations, if not causes, of the disease, said Ng, who is also director of Hong Kong’s Microbiota I-Center (MagIC). “Unlike inflammation, which is a manifestation of the disease, the gut microbiome may serve as a more reliable biomarker less affected by the disease’s fluctuating cycle.”

The study findings showed that bacterial markers remain consistent even during the inactive disease phase. Additionally, the results are reproducible across different populations, suggesting that these markers are true indicators of IBD, she added. “With a better performance than the commonly used noninvasive test, fecal calprotectin, we believe the test will be a valuable addition to clinician’s toolbox and a strong option for first-line diagnostics.”

 

The Study

The group used metagenomic data from 5979 fecal samples from persons with and without IBD from different regions (including the United States) and of different ethnicities. Identifying several microbiota alterations in IBD, they selected bacterial species to construct diagnostic models for UC (n = 10) and CD (n = 9). Some species were deleted and some were enriched in IBD.

Metagenomic findings confirmed, for example, enrichments of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in the guts of CD patients, with adherent invasive E coli present in more than half of these. This pathogen has been linked to mucosal dysbiosis and functional alteration, and has been associated with disease activity and endoscopic recurrence following surgery. B fragilis may induce intestinal inflammation through toxin production.

The researchers also identified a new oral bacterium, Actinomyces species oral taxon 181, which was significantly enriched in stool samples with both CD and UC.

The diagnostic models achieved areas under the curve of >.90 for distinguishing IBD patients from controls in the discovery cohort and maintained satisfactory performance in transethnic validation cohorts from eight populations.

Ng’s group further developed a multiplex droplet digital PCR test targeting selected IBD-associated bacterial species. Models based on this test showed numerically higher performance than fecal calprotectin in discriminating UC and CD samples from controls. These universally IBD-associated bacteria suggest the potential applicability of a biomarker panel for noninvasive diagnosis.

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called it “a very important study that highlights the potential role of a microbiome-based diagnostic for screening. It could have application in a wide variety of settings and is very promising.”

More work, however, is necessary to clarify such testing’s role. “The study’s validation in independent cohorts is an important strength, but the sizes of those cohorts are still quite small,” he said in an interview. “It’s important to understand its accuracy across a spectrum of IBD phenotypes and severity.”

Furthermore, endoscopic evaluation at diagnosis is important to establish severity and extent of disease. “It’s not clear this diagnostic biomarker can help supplant that role. But I see potential value to it for patients for whom we may not be considering endoscopy yet but who would like to risk-stratify.”

 

The Test’s Future

“We expect to see a real shift in clinical practice,” Ng said. “As a cost-effective test, it will help millions of people dealing with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms get the diagnoses they need.” Because the bacterial test can identify IBD at an inactive stage, it has the potential for early diagnosis. “This capability allows clinicians to initiate treatment sooner, helping to prevent progression from subclinical to clinical stages of the disease.”

The next research steps involve prospective studies with a larger and more diverse group of patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms. “This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of bacterial biomarkers in real-world populations,” she said. In vivo and in vitro experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights into the causal role of these bacteria and metabolic dysregulations in the pathogenesis of IBD, as well as their future clinical utility in disease monitoring and predicting treatment response.

Her group plans to work with the biotech industry and regulatory agencies to transform these biomarkers into an approved test kit. “The rollout is likely to be gradual, but we’re optimistic that supportive international and national guidelines will be developed and will pave the way for widespread implementation.”

This study was supported by various academic, charitable, and governmental research-funding bodies, including the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Ng has served as an advisory board member or speaker for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, Tillotts, Menarini, and Takeda. She has received research grants through her institutions from Olympus, Ferring, and AbbVie and is a founding member and shareholder of GenieBiome. She receives patent royalties through her institutions, including MagIC, which holds patents on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of the microbiome in IBD. Several co-authors reported various relationships, including patent holding, with private-sector companies. Ananthakrishnan had no relevant competing interests.

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

International researchers have uncovered potentially diagnostic gut microbiome signatures and metabolic pathways associated specifically with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD).

Targeted droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)‒based quantification of bacterial species led to convenient inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) diagnostic assays that “are sufficiently robust, sensitive and cost-effective for clinical application,” the investigators wrote in a recent study published in Nature Medicine.

“Although traditional modalities used for diagnosis of IBD, including colonoscopy and cross-sectional imaging, are well established, the inconvenience of bowel preparation and radiation represents relevant concerns,” senior author Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, a professor in the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in an interview. “Furthermore, existing serological and fecal markers indicate inflammation but lack specificity for IBD.”

Identifying reproducible bacterial biomarkers specific to CD and IBD should enable precise and personalized approaches to detection and management.

As a starting point, the researchers hypothesized that changes in the gut microbiome of IBD patients may reflect underlying functional associations, if not causes, of the disease, said Ng, who is also director of Hong Kong’s Microbiota I-Center (MagIC). “Unlike inflammation, which is a manifestation of the disease, the gut microbiome may serve as a more reliable biomarker less affected by the disease’s fluctuating cycle.”

The study findings showed that bacterial markers remain consistent even during the inactive disease phase. Additionally, the results are reproducible across different populations, suggesting that these markers are true indicators of IBD, she added. “With a better performance than the commonly used noninvasive test, fecal calprotectin, we believe the test will be a valuable addition to clinician’s toolbox and a strong option for first-line diagnostics.”

 

The Study

The group used metagenomic data from 5979 fecal samples from persons with and without IBD from different regions (including the United States) and of different ethnicities. Identifying several microbiota alterations in IBD, they selected bacterial species to construct diagnostic models for UC (n = 10) and CD (n = 9). Some species were deleted and some were enriched in IBD.

Metagenomic findings confirmed, for example, enrichments of Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis in the guts of CD patients, with adherent invasive E coli present in more than half of these. This pathogen has been linked to mucosal dysbiosis and functional alteration, and has been associated with disease activity and endoscopic recurrence following surgery. B fragilis may induce intestinal inflammation through toxin production.

The researchers also identified a new oral bacterium, Actinomyces species oral taxon 181, which was significantly enriched in stool samples with both CD and UC.

The diagnostic models achieved areas under the curve of >.90 for distinguishing IBD patients from controls in the discovery cohort and maintained satisfactory performance in transethnic validation cohorts from eight populations.

Ng’s group further developed a multiplex droplet digital PCR test targeting selected IBD-associated bacterial species. Models based on this test showed numerically higher performance than fecal calprotectin in discriminating UC and CD samples from controls. These universally IBD-associated bacteria suggest the potential applicability of a biomarker panel for noninvasive diagnosis.

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called it “a very important study that highlights the potential role of a microbiome-based diagnostic for screening. It could have application in a wide variety of settings and is very promising.”

More work, however, is necessary to clarify such testing’s role. “The study’s validation in independent cohorts is an important strength, but the sizes of those cohorts are still quite small,” he said in an interview. “It’s important to understand its accuracy across a spectrum of IBD phenotypes and severity.”

Furthermore, endoscopic evaluation at diagnosis is important to establish severity and extent of disease. “It’s not clear this diagnostic biomarker can help supplant that role. But I see potential value to it for patients for whom we may not be considering endoscopy yet but who would like to risk-stratify.”

 

The Test’s Future

“We expect to see a real shift in clinical practice,” Ng said. “As a cost-effective test, it will help millions of people dealing with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms get the diagnoses they need.” Because the bacterial test can identify IBD at an inactive stage, it has the potential for early diagnosis. “This capability allows clinicians to initiate treatment sooner, helping to prevent progression from subclinical to clinical stages of the disease.”

The next research steps involve prospective studies with a larger and more diverse group of patients with various gastrointestinal symptoms. “This will enable a comprehensive evaluation of bacterial biomarkers in real-world populations,” she said. In vivo and in vitro experiments are expected to provide mechanistic insights into the causal role of these bacteria and metabolic dysregulations in the pathogenesis of IBD, as well as their future clinical utility in disease monitoring and predicting treatment response.

Her group plans to work with the biotech industry and regulatory agencies to transform these biomarkers into an approved test kit. “The rollout is likely to be gradual, but we’re optimistic that supportive international and national guidelines will be developed and will pave the way for widespread implementation.”

This study was supported by various academic, charitable, and governmental research-funding bodies, including the governments of Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. Ng has served as an advisory board member or speaker for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, AbbVie, Tillotts, Menarini, and Takeda. She has received research grants through her institutions from Olympus, Ferring, and AbbVie and is a founding member and shareholder of GenieBiome. She receives patent royalties through her institutions, including MagIC, which holds patents on the therapeutic and diagnostic use of the microbiome in IBD. Several co-authors reported various relationships, including patent holding, with private-sector companies. Ananthakrishnan had no relevant competing interests.

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

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.

“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.

 

Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.

“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

 

The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”

One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated. 

“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.

The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.

 

Specifics

Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.

The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.

The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.

Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:

• Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
• Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
• Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
• For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
• In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
• The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
• The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
• Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
• The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
• For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
• For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.

According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.

However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”

Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”

 

The Future

The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.

The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.

They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.

The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.

“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.

 

Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.

“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

 

The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”

One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated. 

“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.

The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.

 

Specifics

Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.

The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.

The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.

Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:

• Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
• Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
• Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
• For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
• In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
• The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
• The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
• Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
• The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
• For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
• For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.

According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.

However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”

Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”

 

The Future

The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.

The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.

They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.

The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a rapidly expanding therapeutic landscape, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued updated practice guidelines for the pharmacological management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) in adult outpatients.

“These are the first living guidelines published by a GI society, highlighting the interest and need to provide timely guidance to all stakeholders in a rapidly evolving field,” first author Siddharth Singh, MD, of the Division of Gastroenterology in the Department of Medicine at University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. Living guidance allows for ongoing revision of individual recommendations as new data emerge. Nearly 2 million Americans have UC.

 

Issued in Gastroenterology and updating the last guidance in 2020, the recommendations suggest more efficacious drugs should be used sooner. “Early use of advanced therapies including biologics and small-molecule drugs are more effective than 5-aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] or thiopurines and methotrexate for most patients with moderate to severe UC and those with poor prognostic factors,” coauthor and gastroenterologist Manasi Agrawal, MD, MS, an assistant professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said in an interview.

“We provide a practical guidance based on best-available evidence to make it easy for the treating clinician to make informed choices from the multiplicity of available treatments for UC,” added guidelines coauthor Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

 

The comprehensive, patient-centered document comes with this caveat from the AGA panel: “These guidelines are meant to be broad recommendations for management of patients with moderate to severe UC and are not intended to address the intricacies of individual patients,” they wrote. “Provider experience and patient values and preferences can inform treating providers and patients to reasonably choose alternative treatment options.”

One gastroenterologist who has been eagerly awaiting these guidelines but not involved in the panel is James D. Lewis, MD, MSCE, AGAF, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The choice of medications for moderately to severely active UC has expanded tremendously in the past few years,” he said in an interview. “This resulted in the dismantling of the historical therapeutic pyramid.” And while there are many more treatment options, knowing which medication to use for which patient and in which sequence has become much more complicated. 

“These guidelines will be extremely helpful for clinicians trying to navigate this new era of UC care,” he said.

The guidelines also outline implementation considerations for optimal use in different scenarios. “Key considerations include patient-related factors such as age, frailty, other health conditions, consideration for pregnancy, patient preferences, and access to healthcare,” Agrawal said.

 

Specifics

Overall, the guidance recommends advanced or immunomodulatory therapy after failure of 5-ASAs rather than a step-up approach. Moderate to severe disease is defined as a Mayo endoscopic severity subscore of 2 or 3.

The recommendation may also apply to mild disease in the presence of a high burden of inflammation and a poor prognosis or steroid dependence or resistance.

The AGA guideline panelists took account of differences in treatment efficacy between drugs within the same therapeutic class and made their recommendations by specific drugs rather than therapy class.

Based on varying degrees of evidence certainty, the AGA recommends or suggests the following management specifics in adult outpatients with moderate to severe disease:

• Any of the following is recommended over no treatment: infliximab (Remicade), golimumab (Simponi), vedolizumab (Entyvio), tofacitinib (Xeljanz), upadacitinib (Rinvoq), ustekinumab (Stelara), ozanimod (Zeposia), etrasimod (Velsipity), risankizumab (Skyrizi), and guselkumab (Tremfya).
• Adalimumab (Humira), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and mirikizumab (Omvoh) are suggested over no treatment.
• Biosimilars to infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab can be considered of equivalent efficacy to their originator drugs.
• For patients naive to advanced therapies, the AGA panel proposes using a higher-efficacy medication (eg, infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, and guselkumab) or an intermediate-efficacy medication (golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, and mirikizumab) rather than a lower-efficacy medication such as adalimumab.
• In patients previously exposed to advanced therapy, particularly tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha antagonists, the panel suggests using a higher-efficacy medication (tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and ustekinumab) or an intermediate-efficacy agent (filgotinib, mirikizumab, risankizumab, and guselkumab) over a lower-efficacy medication (adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, and etrasimod).
• The panel suggests against the use of thiopurine monotherapy for inducing remission but suggests thiopurine monotherapy over no treatment for maintenance of (typically corticosteroid-induced) remission.
• The panel suggests against the use of methotrexate monotherapy for induction or maintenance of remission.
• Infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in combination with an immunomodulator are suggested over monotherapy.
• The panel makes no recommendation for or against non-TNF antagonist biologics in combination with an immunomodulator over non-TNF biologics alone.
• For patients in corticosteroid-free clinical remission for at least 6 months on combination therapy with TNF antagonists and immunomodulators, the panel suggests against withdrawing TNF antagonists but makes no recommendation for or against withdrawing immunomodulators.
• For those who have failed 5-ASAs and have escalated to immunomodulators or advanced therapies, the panel suggests stopping these agents. It suggests the early use of advanced therapies and/or immunomodulator therapy rather than gradual step-up after failure of 5-ASAs.

According to Lewis, the guidance will be useful to both community physicians and highly specialized gastroenterologists. “While few practicing physicians will be able to commit the entirety of the classifications in this guideline to memory, the tool is a quick reference resource to help providers and patients to choose between the many options,” he said.

However, he noted that not all patients and providers may have the same priorities as the guidelines. “There are a few nuances to the methods of the AGA guidelines. For example, the panel prioritized efficacy over safety because the incidence of serious adverse events secondary to medications is relatively rare.”

Lewis also noted that the way the panel classified higher-, intermediate-, and lower-efficacy medications sometimes produced surprising results. “For example, among patients naive to advanced therapies, the IL [interleukin]–23 inhibitors risankizumab and guselkumab were classified as higher efficacy, while the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab was considered intermediate efficacy,” he said. “These were reversed for patients with prior exposure to advanced therapies, where ustekinumab was considered higher efficacy and all three IL-23 inhibitors were considered intermediate efficacy.”

 

The Future

The panel identified several knowledge gaps that future studies should address. These include a paucity of head-to-head comparison trials, including active comparators to accurately inform positioning of different treatments and therapeutic mechanisms.

The panelists also noted a literature gap on the efficacy of different therapies in the setting of failure or intolerance to non-TNF antagonist advanced therapy, which could be relevant to drugs that may have a greater overlap in their therapeutic mechanisms — for instance, anti-trafficking agents.

They pointed to a paucity of data on how predictive models can inform future treatment selection in the real-world setting. “There is clearly a need for identifying biomarkers predictive of response to individual therapies, to facilitate optimal choice of therapies,” they wrote.

The panel also recognized that novel therapeutic strategies may soon be in use, including combination advanced therapy or episodic use of nonimmunogenic advanced therapies such as small molecules. “Further primary data are required to accurately inform the positioning of such strategies,” they wrote.

These guidelines were fully funded by the AGA Institute. Singh and Agrawal are supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), and Ananthakrishnan is supported by the NIDDK, as well as by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust and the Chleck Family Foundation. Singh disclosed Institutional research grants from Pfizer. Agrawal reported consulting for Douglas Pharmaceuticals. Several coauthors disclosed receiving consulting fees and/or research support from various private companies in the healthcare field. One author reported stock ownership stock in Exact Sciences. Lewis reported consulting, advisory board service, or data monitoring for Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer, Protagonist Therapeutics, and Sanofi. He received research funding or in-kind support from Nestle Health Science, Takeda, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly and has had educational grants from Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – The addition of bezlotoxumab to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) does not provide any clear added benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI), according to a randomized controlled trial.

“Given the high efficacy of FMT, the addition of bezlotoxumab may not provide a further reduction in CDI recurrence,” said study author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Allegretti presented the findings during a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Common and Deadly

CDI is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infection in the United States, leading to roughly 4.8 billion in excess healthcare costs. There are an estimated 500,000 cases each year in the United States, with roughly 30,000 of those cases leading to death.

Patients with IBD have a prevalence of CDI that is 2.5- to 8-fold higher than in peers without IBD, and they also have 4.5-fold higher risk of recurrence. Sequelae of CDI in IBD include exacerbations of IBD, increased hospitalizations, escalation of IBD therapy, and colectomy.

FMT has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with IBD and rCDI.

Bezlotoxumab — a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B — was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 to reduce the recurrence of CDI in patients aged 18 years and older.

However, there is only limited data on the value of combining these two strategies.

Allegretti and colleagues conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of FMT in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with IBD and rCDI.

They enrolled 61 patients (mean age, 38 years, 54% men) with two or more episodes of CDI who received a single colonoscopic FMT. Twenty patients had Crohn’s disease, and 41 had ulcerative colitis.

Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion and 31 to receive a placebo infusion prior to FMT.

A total of five participants (8%) experienced a CDI recurrence with confirmed EIA+ stool –4 in the treatment group and 1 in the placebo group (13% vs 3%, P = .15).

Participants in the treatment group had higher odds of CDI recurrence, though this was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 4.6; 95% CI, 0.5-43.9), Allegretti reported.

With regards to C difficile colonization, more patients in the treatment group were decolonized compared with placebo at week 1 (82% vs 68%, P = .22) and at week 12 (83% vs 72%, P = .34). 

Steroid use at the time of FMT was associated with a significant increased risk of ongoing colonization of C difficile at week 12 post-FMT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.18-20.37; P = .03).

While there were no significant differences in IBD outcomes between groups, there were numerically higher rates of IBD improvement in the treatment group compared to the placebo group 56% vs 46%.

Only one patient had IBD worsen, and this patient was in the placebo group. There were no de novo IBD flares.

FMT alone and with bezlotoxumab were both safe and well tolerated. Two serious adverse events were reported; neither were deemed to be treatment-related.

“This is the first clinical trial to assess the clinical effect of FMT in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with IBD and rCDI. The data suggest no clear efficacy benefit to this combination compared to FMT alone,” Allegretti told attendees.

“This finding is not surprising given the high rate of efficacy of FMT,” said Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

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

PHILADELPHIA – The addition of bezlotoxumab to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) does not provide any clear added benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI), according to a randomized controlled trial.

“Given the high efficacy of FMT, the addition of bezlotoxumab may not provide a further reduction in CDI recurrence,” said study author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Allegretti presented the findings during a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Common and Deadly

CDI is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infection in the United States, leading to roughly 4.8 billion in excess healthcare costs. There are an estimated 500,000 cases each year in the United States, with roughly 30,000 of those cases leading to death.

Patients with IBD have a prevalence of CDI that is 2.5- to 8-fold higher than in peers without IBD, and they also have 4.5-fold higher risk of recurrence. Sequelae of CDI in IBD include exacerbations of IBD, increased hospitalizations, escalation of IBD therapy, and colectomy.

FMT has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with IBD and rCDI.

Bezlotoxumab — a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B — was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 to reduce the recurrence of CDI in patients aged 18 years and older.

However, there is only limited data on the value of combining these two strategies.

Allegretti and colleagues conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of FMT in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with IBD and rCDI.

They enrolled 61 patients (mean age, 38 years, 54% men) with two or more episodes of CDI who received a single colonoscopic FMT. Twenty patients had Crohn’s disease, and 41 had ulcerative colitis.

Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion and 31 to receive a placebo infusion prior to FMT.

A total of five participants (8%) experienced a CDI recurrence with confirmed EIA+ stool –4 in the treatment group and 1 in the placebo group (13% vs 3%, P = .15).

Participants in the treatment group had higher odds of CDI recurrence, though this was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 4.6; 95% CI, 0.5-43.9), Allegretti reported.

With regards to C difficile colonization, more patients in the treatment group were decolonized compared with placebo at week 1 (82% vs 68%, P = .22) and at week 12 (83% vs 72%, P = .34). 

Steroid use at the time of FMT was associated with a significant increased risk of ongoing colonization of C difficile at week 12 post-FMT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.18-20.37; P = .03).

While there were no significant differences in IBD outcomes between groups, there were numerically higher rates of IBD improvement in the treatment group compared to the placebo group 56% vs 46%.

Only one patient had IBD worsen, and this patient was in the placebo group. There were no de novo IBD flares.

FMT alone and with bezlotoxumab were both safe and well tolerated. Two serious adverse events were reported; neither were deemed to be treatment-related.

“This is the first clinical trial to assess the clinical effect of FMT in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with IBD and rCDI. The data suggest no clear efficacy benefit to this combination compared to FMT alone,” Allegretti told attendees.

“This finding is not surprising given the high rate of efficacy of FMT,” said Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

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

PHILADELPHIA – The addition of bezlotoxumab to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) does not provide any clear added benefit in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI), according to a randomized controlled trial.

“Given the high efficacy of FMT, the addition of bezlotoxumab may not provide a further reduction in CDI recurrence,” said study author Jessica R. Allegretti, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Allegretti presented the findings during a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

Common and Deadly

CDI is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infection in the United States, leading to roughly 4.8 billion in excess healthcare costs. There are an estimated 500,000 cases each year in the United States, with roughly 30,000 of those cases leading to death.

Patients with IBD have a prevalence of CDI that is 2.5- to 8-fold higher than in peers without IBD, and they also have 4.5-fold higher risk of recurrence. Sequelae of CDI in IBD include exacerbations of IBD, increased hospitalizations, escalation of IBD therapy, and colectomy.

FMT has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with IBD and rCDI.

Bezlotoxumab — a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to C difficile toxin B — was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 to reduce the recurrence of CDI in patients aged 18 years and older.

However, there is only limited data on the value of combining these two strategies.

Allegretti and colleagues conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of FMT in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with IBD and rCDI.

They enrolled 61 patients (mean age, 38 years, 54% men) with two or more episodes of CDI who received a single colonoscopic FMT. Twenty patients had Crohn’s disease, and 41 had ulcerative colitis.

Thirty patients were randomly allocated to receive a single bezlotoxumab infusion and 31 to receive a placebo infusion prior to FMT.

A total of five participants (8%) experienced a CDI recurrence with confirmed EIA+ stool –4 in the treatment group and 1 in the placebo group (13% vs 3%, P = .15).

Participants in the treatment group had higher odds of CDI recurrence, though this was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 4.6; 95% CI, 0.5-43.9), Allegretti reported.

With regards to C difficile colonization, more patients in the treatment group were decolonized compared with placebo at week 1 (82% vs 68%, P = .22) and at week 12 (83% vs 72%, P = .34). 

Steroid use at the time of FMT was associated with a significant increased risk of ongoing colonization of C difficile at week 12 post-FMT (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.18-20.37; P = .03).

While there were no significant differences in IBD outcomes between groups, there were numerically higher rates of IBD improvement in the treatment group compared to the placebo group 56% vs 46%.

Only one patient had IBD worsen, and this patient was in the placebo group. There were no de novo IBD flares.

FMT alone and with bezlotoxumab were both safe and well tolerated. Two serious adverse events were reported; neither were deemed to be treatment-related.

“This is the first clinical trial to assess the clinical effect of FMT in combination with bezlotoxumab in patients with IBD and rCDI. The data suggest no clear efficacy benefit to this combination compared to FMT alone,” Allegretti told attendees.

“This finding is not surprising given the high rate of efficacy of FMT,” said Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

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