Carolyn Crist

The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has increased fivefold in the United States since 2009, now affecting about 1 in 700 people and totaling $1.32 billion in annual healthcare costs, according to recent research.

Although EoE has been considered a rare disease, the chronic condition is becoming more common, and healthcare providers should expect to encounter EoE in clinical settings, the study authors wrote.

“Our last assessment of the prevalence and burden of EoE was more than 10 years ago, and we had a strong suspicion we would continue to see increased numbers of patients with EoE and an increasing cost burden related to the condition in the United States,” said senior author Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

“EoE is becoming more common,” Dellon said. “Healthcare providers should expect to see EoE in their practices, including in the primary care setting, emergency departments, allergy practices, GI [gastrointestinal] practices, ENT clinics, and endoscopy suites.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimating EoE Prevalence

Dellon and colleagues analyzed the Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Fee-for-Service databases to calculate the annual prevalence of EoE, as well as age- and sex-stratified estimates standardized to the US population. They also calculated healthcare utilization, including medications and endoscopic procedures, to estimate annual EoE-associated costs. Since the EoE billing code was introduced in 2008, the analysis included 2009-2022 MarketScan and 2009-2017 Medicare data.

In the MarketScan database, the research team identified 20,435 EoE cases in 2022, with a mean age of 38 years, 16% younger than 18 years, 62% men, and 41% with a comorbid allergic disease code. The most common symptoms and diagnoses were dysphagia (39%), abdominal pain or dyspepsia (24%), and esophageal stricture (19%). Over time, patients also had previous codes for comorbid allergic diseases (64%), dysphagia (62%), or esophageal stricture (32%).

In the Medicare database, the research team identified 1913 EoE cases in 2017, with a mean age of 73 years, 47% men, 90% non-Hispanic White, and 36% with a comorbid allergic disease. The most common symptoms and diagnoses were dysphagia (49%), abdominal pain or dyspepsia (35%), and esophageal stricture (30%). Over time, patients also had codes for comorbid allergic diseases (64%), dysphagia (65%), or esophageal stricture (42%).

The database numbers translated to EoE prevalences of about 163 cases per 100,000 people in MarketScan in 2022 and 64 cases per 100,000 people in Medicare in 2017. Since 2009, there has been a fivefold increase in prevalence in both databases.

In MarketScan, the prevalence was higher among men than among women, at 204 vs 122 cases per 100,000 people. For both sexes, peak prevalence occurred between ages 40 and 44.

In Medicare, prevalence was also higher among men than among women, at 79 vs 55 cases per 100,000 people. Peak prevalence occurred between ages 65 and 69.

Standardized to the US population, EoE prevalence was 142.5 cases per 100,000 people, extrapolating to 472,380 cases. The overall prevalence was approximately 1 in 700, with rates of 1 in 617 for those younger than 65 years and 1 in 1562 for those aged ≥ 65 years.

“The rapidly increasing prevalence year over year for the entire timeframe of the study was surprising, as were our estimates of the total number of EoE patients in the US, which suggests that EoE is no longer a rare disease and is now seen in about 1 in 700 people,” Dellon said. “This almost triples our prior estimates of 1 in 2000 from 10 years ago, with all trends suggesting that the prevalence will continue to increase.”

 

Calculating EoE Costs

In terms of procedures, endoscopy with dilation or biopsy was used in about 60%-70% of patients with EoE in both MarketScan and Medicare during the years analyzed. In addition, upper endoscopy with biopsy was coded in 80%-90% of patients, guidewire-based dilation in 11%-17% of patients, and balloon-based dilation in 13%-20% of patients.

In terms of prescription medications, proton pump inhibitors (41%) and topical steroids (26%) were the most common in MarketScan in 2022, as well as in Medicare in 2017, at 32% and 9%, respectively.

When looking at costs by age and sex, the male cohort with the highest costs was aged 10-14 years, estimated at $106.7 million. Among the female cohort, the highest costs were associated with ages 15-19, estimated at $46.5 million.

Overall, total EoE-associated healthcare costs were estimated to be $1.04 billion in 2017, and when adjusted for inflation, the costs were estimated at $1.32 billion in 2024. This is likely an underestimate, the authors wrote, given that EoE prevalence has likely increased for ages 65 or older since 2017 and for all ages since 2022.

“Researching the prevalence and costs is essential to improving patient care by highlighting the growing burden of this recently recognized and growing chronic disease, guiding policy and insurer decisions, and advocating for better access to effective treatments and support for patients,” said Joy Chang, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Chang, who wasn’t involved with this study, specializes in eosinophilic GI diseases and researches patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“Clinicians should remain vigilant for symptoms, utilize guideline-based diagnostic approaches, and consider both medical and dietary treatment strategies to optimize patient outcomes and reduce long-term costs,” she said. “Increased awareness and timely intervention can help mitigate the growing impact of this chronic condition.”

The study was supported by a National Institutes of Health grant and used resources from the University of North Carolina Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease. Dellon reported receiving research funding from and having consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has increased fivefold in the United States since 2009, now affecting about 1 in 700 people and totaling $1.32 billion in annual healthcare costs, according to recent research.

Although EoE has been considered a rare disease, the chronic condition is becoming more common, and healthcare providers should expect to encounter EoE in clinical settings, the study authors wrote.

“Our last assessment of the prevalence and burden of EoE was more than 10 years ago, and we had a strong suspicion we would continue to see increased numbers of patients with EoE and an increasing cost burden related to the condition in the United States,” said senior author Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

“EoE is becoming more common,” Dellon said. “Healthcare providers should expect to see EoE in their practices, including in the primary care setting, emergency departments, allergy practices, GI [gastrointestinal] practices, ENT clinics, and endoscopy suites.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimating EoE Prevalence

Dellon and colleagues analyzed the Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Fee-for-Service databases to calculate the annual prevalence of EoE, as well as age- and sex-stratified estimates standardized to the US population. They also calculated healthcare utilization, including medications and endoscopic procedures, to estimate annual EoE-associated costs. Since the EoE billing code was introduced in 2008, the analysis included 2009-2022 MarketScan and 2009-2017 Medicare data.

In the MarketScan database, the research team identified 20,435 EoE cases in 2022, with a mean age of 38 years, 16% younger than 18 years, 62% men, and 41% with a comorbid allergic disease code. The most common symptoms and diagnoses were dysphagia (39%), abdominal pain or dyspepsia (24%), and esophageal stricture (19%). Over time, patients also had previous codes for comorbid allergic diseases (64%), dysphagia (62%), or esophageal stricture (32%).

In the Medicare database, the research team identified 1913 EoE cases in 2017, with a mean age of 73 years, 47% men, 90% non-Hispanic White, and 36% with a comorbid allergic disease. The most common symptoms and diagnoses were dysphagia (49%), abdominal pain or dyspepsia (35%), and esophageal stricture (30%). Over time, patients also had codes for comorbid allergic diseases (64%), dysphagia (65%), or esophageal stricture (42%).

The database numbers translated to EoE prevalences of about 163 cases per 100,000 people in MarketScan in 2022 and 64 cases per 100,000 people in Medicare in 2017. Since 2009, there has been a fivefold increase in prevalence in both databases.

In MarketScan, the prevalence was higher among men than among women, at 204 vs 122 cases per 100,000 people. For both sexes, peak prevalence occurred between ages 40 and 44.

In Medicare, prevalence was also higher among men than among women, at 79 vs 55 cases per 100,000 people. Peak prevalence occurred between ages 65 and 69.

Standardized to the US population, EoE prevalence was 142.5 cases per 100,000 people, extrapolating to 472,380 cases. The overall prevalence was approximately 1 in 700, with rates of 1 in 617 for those younger than 65 years and 1 in 1562 for those aged ≥ 65 years.

“The rapidly increasing prevalence year over year for the entire timeframe of the study was surprising, as were our estimates of the total number of EoE patients in the US, which suggests that EoE is no longer a rare disease and is now seen in about 1 in 700 people,” Dellon said. “This almost triples our prior estimates of 1 in 2000 from 10 years ago, with all trends suggesting that the prevalence will continue to increase.”

 

Calculating EoE Costs

In terms of procedures, endoscopy with dilation or biopsy was used in about 60%-70% of patients with EoE in both MarketScan and Medicare during the years analyzed. In addition, upper endoscopy with biopsy was coded in 80%-90% of patients, guidewire-based dilation in 11%-17% of patients, and balloon-based dilation in 13%-20% of patients.

In terms of prescription medications, proton pump inhibitors (41%) and topical steroids (26%) were the most common in MarketScan in 2022, as well as in Medicare in 2017, at 32% and 9%, respectively.

When looking at costs by age and sex, the male cohort with the highest costs was aged 10-14 years, estimated at $106.7 million. Among the female cohort, the highest costs were associated with ages 15-19, estimated at $46.5 million.

Overall, total EoE-associated healthcare costs were estimated to be $1.04 billion in 2017, and when adjusted for inflation, the costs were estimated at $1.32 billion in 2024. This is likely an underestimate, the authors wrote, given that EoE prevalence has likely increased for ages 65 or older since 2017 and for all ages since 2022.

“Researching the prevalence and costs is essential to improving patient care by highlighting the growing burden of this recently recognized and growing chronic disease, guiding policy and insurer decisions, and advocating for better access to effective treatments and support for patients,” said Joy Chang, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Chang, who wasn’t involved with this study, specializes in eosinophilic GI diseases and researches patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“Clinicians should remain vigilant for symptoms, utilize guideline-based diagnostic approaches, and consider both medical and dietary treatment strategies to optimize patient outcomes and reduce long-term costs,” she said. “Increased awareness and timely intervention can help mitigate the growing impact of this chronic condition.”

The study was supported by a National Institutes of Health grant and used resources from the University of North Carolina Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease. Dellon reported receiving research funding from and having consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has increased fivefold in the United States since 2009, now affecting about 1 in 700 people and totaling $1.32 billion in annual healthcare costs, according to recent research.

Although EoE has been considered a rare disease, the chronic condition is becoming more common, and healthcare providers should expect to encounter EoE in clinical settings, the study authors wrote.

“Our last assessment of the prevalence and burden of EoE was more than 10 years ago, and we had a strong suspicion we would continue to see increased numbers of patients with EoE and an increasing cost burden related to the condition in the United States,” said senior author Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

“EoE is becoming more common,” Dellon said. “Healthcare providers should expect to see EoE in their practices, including in the primary care setting, emergency departments, allergy practices, GI [gastrointestinal] practices, ENT clinics, and endoscopy suites.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Estimating EoE Prevalence

Dellon and colleagues analyzed the Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Fee-for-Service databases to calculate the annual prevalence of EoE, as well as age- and sex-stratified estimates standardized to the US population. They also calculated healthcare utilization, including medications and endoscopic procedures, to estimate annual EoE-associated costs. Since the EoE billing code was introduced in 2008, the analysis included 2009-2022 MarketScan and 2009-2017 Medicare data.

In the MarketScan database, the research team identified 20,435 EoE cases in 2022, with a mean age of 38 years, 16% younger than 18 years, 62% men, and 41% with a comorbid allergic disease code. The most common symptoms and diagnoses were dysphagia (39%), abdominal pain or dyspepsia (24%), and esophageal stricture (19%). Over time, patients also had previous codes for comorbid allergic diseases (64%), dysphagia (62%), or esophageal stricture (32%).

In the Medicare database, the research team identified 1913 EoE cases in 2017, with a mean age of 73 years, 47% men, 90% non-Hispanic White, and 36% with a comorbid allergic disease. The most common symptoms and diagnoses were dysphagia (49%), abdominal pain or dyspepsia (35%), and esophageal stricture (30%). Over time, patients also had codes for comorbid allergic diseases (64%), dysphagia (65%), or esophageal stricture (42%).

The database numbers translated to EoE prevalences of about 163 cases per 100,000 people in MarketScan in 2022 and 64 cases per 100,000 people in Medicare in 2017. Since 2009, there has been a fivefold increase in prevalence in both databases.

In MarketScan, the prevalence was higher among men than among women, at 204 vs 122 cases per 100,000 people. For both sexes, peak prevalence occurred between ages 40 and 44.

In Medicare, prevalence was also higher among men than among women, at 79 vs 55 cases per 100,000 people. Peak prevalence occurred between ages 65 and 69.

Standardized to the US population, EoE prevalence was 142.5 cases per 100,000 people, extrapolating to 472,380 cases. The overall prevalence was approximately 1 in 700, with rates of 1 in 617 for those younger than 65 years and 1 in 1562 for those aged ≥ 65 years.

“The rapidly increasing prevalence year over year for the entire timeframe of the study was surprising, as were our estimates of the total number of EoE patients in the US, which suggests that EoE is no longer a rare disease and is now seen in about 1 in 700 people,” Dellon said. “This almost triples our prior estimates of 1 in 2000 from 10 years ago, with all trends suggesting that the prevalence will continue to increase.”

 

Calculating EoE Costs

In terms of procedures, endoscopy with dilation or biopsy was used in about 60%-70% of patients with EoE in both MarketScan and Medicare during the years analyzed. In addition, upper endoscopy with biopsy was coded in 80%-90% of patients, guidewire-based dilation in 11%-17% of patients, and balloon-based dilation in 13%-20% of patients.

In terms of prescription medications, proton pump inhibitors (41%) and topical steroids (26%) were the most common in MarketScan in 2022, as well as in Medicare in 2017, at 32% and 9%, respectively.

When looking at costs by age and sex, the male cohort with the highest costs was aged 10-14 years, estimated at $106.7 million. Among the female cohort, the highest costs were associated with ages 15-19, estimated at $46.5 million.

Overall, total EoE-associated healthcare costs were estimated to be $1.04 billion in 2017, and when adjusted for inflation, the costs were estimated at $1.32 billion in 2024. This is likely an underestimate, the authors wrote, given that EoE prevalence has likely increased for ages 65 or older since 2017 and for all ages since 2022.

“Researching the prevalence and costs is essential to improving patient care by highlighting the growing burden of this recently recognized and growing chronic disease, guiding policy and insurer decisions, and advocating for better access to effective treatments and support for patients,” said Joy Chang, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Chang, who wasn’t involved with this study, specializes in eosinophilic GI diseases and researches patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“Clinicians should remain vigilant for symptoms, utilize guideline-based diagnostic approaches, and consider both medical and dietary treatment strategies to optimize patient outcomes and reduce long-term costs,” she said. “Increased awareness and timely intervention can help mitigate the growing impact of this chronic condition.”

The study was supported by a National Institutes of Health grant and used resources from the University of North Carolina Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease. Dellon reported receiving research funding from and having consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

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

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

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

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

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

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

 

Patient-Centered Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

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

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

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

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

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

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

 

Patient-Centered Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.

 

Gastric Cancer Screening

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

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

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

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

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

 

Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis

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

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

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

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

 

Endoscopic Management and Surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

 

Patient-Centered Approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Perioperative optimization of nutrition leads to lower risks, better outcomes, and improved quality of life for adult patients undergoing metabolic and bariatric surgery, according to an updated clinical practice statement from the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA).

The update offers guidance on how to manage metabolic and bariatric surgery patients’ nutrition, from preoperative nutritional assessments through identification and treatment of the most common nutritional problems associated with bariatric procedures.

“The main takeaway really is that obesity is a complex and chronic disease. It requires the same model of care as diabetes or other chronic conditions,” said Rutuja Patel, DO, senior author and an obesity medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Regional Medical Group in Winfield, Illinois.

The development of an interdisciplinary team of medical providers with evidence-based nutrition knowledge and consistent information improves the quality of nutrition care provided to bariatric surgery patients, the authors wrote.

“Collaborative multidisciplinary care that takes into consideration the whole patient in a biopsychosocial way and uses multiple modalities — including medical, behavioral, nutritional, and others — leads to the best outcomes in these complex patients,” Patel said.

The updated statement, published online in Obesity Pillars, offers a variety of tools and checklists to aid clinicians, especially those who may not have access to a multidisciplinary team or dietitian knowledgeable about bariatric nutrition.

It is a follow-up to the OMA’s 2022 clinical practice statement, which provided an overview of bariatric surgery, gastrointestinal hormones, and the microbiome in patients with obesity.

 

Presurgical Guidance

The new guidance lays out the various components of preoperative nutrition screenings, among which is a medication review to determine if the patient is taking drugs that may affect weight and calorie intake. These include antihypertensives, diabetes agents, hormonal contraceptives, antidepressants, migraine medications, and antipsychotics.

In taking a patient’s history, clinicians should ask about major events associated with weight changes, such as medication changes, illness, pregnancy, divorce, stressful employment, food insecurity, and periods of disordered eating.

The fundamental approach to conducting a nutrition assessment is an understanding of the role that various sections of the gastrointestinal tract play in micronutrient absorption, the authors wrote. As an educational tool, the update includes a diagram that indicates the areas of the stomach, duodenum, jejunum, and ileum that may be altered by bariatric surgery and how they factor into micronutrient absorption.

“It makes it easier to see why certain surgical procedures are more likely to cause certain deficiencies,” Patel said.

 

Postsurgery Patient Management

Post surgery, clinicians should monitor patients for other problems that could affect nutrient absorption, including food intolerances, drug-nutrient interactions, and increased gastrointestinal transit time.

Patel and coauthors discussed the pros and cons of multivitamin mineral supplement formulations as well as specific vitamin and mineral recommendations for patients undergoing certain metabolic or bariatric surgery procedures. They included three supplemental cases in the appendix to illustrate supplementation recommendations and long-term maintenance suggestions.

“It’s important to remember that most of these deficiencies present without many clinical symptoms, so it becomes essential to screen for them and repeat as needed,” Patel said.

The update also tackles postoperative nutritional assessments and diet progression. No evidence supports following one postsurgical diet progression protocol over another, but they generally proceed from a clear liquid diet to foods with normal textures, the authors noted. Clinicians should adapt them according to the procedure type, they added.

In addition, clinicians must troubleshoot any nutrition-related concerns, including constipation, dehydration, nausea, heartburn, and fatigue, for up to a year after surgery, they wrote.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery patients should be evaluated annually at a minimum, if not more frequently, to gauge nutritional health, the authors wrote. Treating obesity as a disease involves more than weight loss — instead, it’s about improving the quality of life of patients through procedures, medications, and lifestyle modifications, they added.

 

Track New Developments

With ongoing changes in the field of metabolic and bariatric surgery, it’s helpful for clinicians to remain updated about new approaches across various disciplines linked to obesity management and treatment, said Christina Poa-Li, MD, a surgeon at Huntington Health Medical Center, affiliated with Cedars-Sinai Health System, in Pasadena, California, who was not involved in developing the updated practice statement.

“For example, the rapidly growing prescription of anti-obesity medications and their use in both preoperative and postoperative surgical patients drastically affect their nutrition,” she said. “Providers of various backgrounds and specialties will benefit from the most updated guidance on evaluating patient nutrition.”

Clinicians should consider expanding their patient population to include those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, Poa-Li said.

“These patient subpopulations may not have been considered for bariatric surgery or even referral to a bariatric surgeon for consultation previously,” she said. “It is important to increase awareness among clinicians of the potential benefits for metabolic and bariatric surgery for these patients.”

The report didn’t receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Patel and Poa-Li reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Perioperative optimization of nutrition leads to lower risks, better outcomes, and improved quality of life for adult patients undergoing metabolic and bariatric surgery, according to an updated clinical practice statement from the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA).

The update offers guidance on how to manage metabolic and bariatric surgery patients’ nutrition, from preoperative nutritional assessments through identification and treatment of the most common nutritional problems associated with bariatric procedures.

“The main takeaway really is that obesity is a complex and chronic disease. It requires the same model of care as diabetes or other chronic conditions,” said Rutuja Patel, DO, senior author and an obesity medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Regional Medical Group in Winfield, Illinois.

The development of an interdisciplinary team of medical providers with evidence-based nutrition knowledge and consistent information improves the quality of nutrition care provided to bariatric surgery patients, the authors wrote.

“Collaborative multidisciplinary care that takes into consideration the whole patient in a biopsychosocial way and uses multiple modalities — including medical, behavioral, nutritional, and others — leads to the best outcomes in these complex patients,” Patel said.

The updated statement, published online in Obesity Pillars, offers a variety of tools and checklists to aid clinicians, especially those who may not have access to a multidisciplinary team or dietitian knowledgeable about bariatric nutrition.

It is a follow-up to the OMA’s 2022 clinical practice statement, which provided an overview of bariatric surgery, gastrointestinal hormones, and the microbiome in patients with obesity.

 

Presurgical Guidance

The new guidance lays out the various components of preoperative nutrition screenings, among which is a medication review to determine if the patient is taking drugs that may affect weight and calorie intake. These include antihypertensives, diabetes agents, hormonal contraceptives, antidepressants, migraine medications, and antipsychotics.

In taking a patient’s history, clinicians should ask about major events associated with weight changes, such as medication changes, illness, pregnancy, divorce, stressful employment, food insecurity, and periods of disordered eating.

The fundamental approach to conducting a nutrition assessment is an understanding of the role that various sections of the gastrointestinal tract play in micronutrient absorption, the authors wrote. As an educational tool, the update includes a diagram that indicates the areas of the stomach, duodenum, jejunum, and ileum that may be altered by bariatric surgery and how they factor into micronutrient absorption.

“It makes it easier to see why certain surgical procedures are more likely to cause certain deficiencies,” Patel said.

 

Postsurgery Patient Management

Post surgery, clinicians should monitor patients for other problems that could affect nutrient absorption, including food intolerances, drug-nutrient interactions, and increased gastrointestinal transit time.

Patel and coauthors discussed the pros and cons of multivitamin mineral supplement formulations as well as specific vitamin and mineral recommendations for patients undergoing certain metabolic or bariatric surgery procedures. They included three supplemental cases in the appendix to illustrate supplementation recommendations and long-term maintenance suggestions.

“It’s important to remember that most of these deficiencies present without many clinical symptoms, so it becomes essential to screen for them and repeat as needed,” Patel said.

The update also tackles postoperative nutritional assessments and diet progression. No evidence supports following one postsurgical diet progression protocol over another, but they generally proceed from a clear liquid diet to foods with normal textures, the authors noted. Clinicians should adapt them according to the procedure type, they added.

In addition, clinicians must troubleshoot any nutrition-related concerns, including constipation, dehydration, nausea, heartburn, and fatigue, for up to a year after surgery, they wrote.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery patients should be evaluated annually at a minimum, if not more frequently, to gauge nutritional health, the authors wrote. Treating obesity as a disease involves more than weight loss — instead, it’s about improving the quality of life of patients through procedures, medications, and lifestyle modifications, they added.

 

Track New Developments

With ongoing changes in the field of metabolic and bariatric surgery, it’s helpful for clinicians to remain updated about new approaches across various disciplines linked to obesity management and treatment, said Christina Poa-Li, MD, a surgeon at Huntington Health Medical Center, affiliated with Cedars-Sinai Health System, in Pasadena, California, who was not involved in developing the updated practice statement.

“For example, the rapidly growing prescription of anti-obesity medications and their use in both preoperative and postoperative surgical patients drastically affect their nutrition,” she said. “Providers of various backgrounds and specialties will benefit from the most updated guidance on evaluating patient nutrition.”

Clinicians should consider expanding their patient population to include those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, Poa-Li said.

“These patient subpopulations may not have been considered for bariatric surgery or even referral to a bariatric surgeon for consultation previously,” she said. “It is important to increase awareness among clinicians of the potential benefits for metabolic and bariatric surgery for these patients.”

The report didn’t receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Patel and Poa-Li reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Perioperative optimization of nutrition leads to lower risks, better outcomes, and improved quality of life for adult patients undergoing metabolic and bariatric surgery, according to an updated clinical practice statement from the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA).

The update offers guidance on how to manage metabolic and bariatric surgery patients’ nutrition, from preoperative nutritional assessments through identification and treatment of the most common nutritional problems associated with bariatric procedures.

“The main takeaway really is that obesity is a complex and chronic disease. It requires the same model of care as diabetes or other chronic conditions,” said Rutuja Patel, DO, senior author and an obesity medicine specialist at Northwestern Medicine Regional Medical Group in Winfield, Illinois.

The development of an interdisciplinary team of medical providers with evidence-based nutrition knowledge and consistent information improves the quality of nutrition care provided to bariatric surgery patients, the authors wrote.

“Collaborative multidisciplinary care that takes into consideration the whole patient in a biopsychosocial way and uses multiple modalities — including medical, behavioral, nutritional, and others — leads to the best outcomes in these complex patients,” Patel said.

The updated statement, published online in Obesity Pillars, offers a variety of tools and checklists to aid clinicians, especially those who may not have access to a multidisciplinary team or dietitian knowledgeable about bariatric nutrition.

It is a follow-up to the OMA’s 2022 clinical practice statement, which provided an overview of bariatric surgery, gastrointestinal hormones, and the microbiome in patients with obesity.

 

Presurgical Guidance

The new guidance lays out the various components of preoperative nutrition screenings, among which is a medication review to determine if the patient is taking drugs that may affect weight and calorie intake. These include antihypertensives, diabetes agents, hormonal contraceptives, antidepressants, migraine medications, and antipsychotics.

In taking a patient’s history, clinicians should ask about major events associated with weight changes, such as medication changes, illness, pregnancy, divorce, stressful employment, food insecurity, and periods of disordered eating.

The fundamental approach to conducting a nutrition assessment is an understanding of the role that various sections of the gastrointestinal tract play in micronutrient absorption, the authors wrote. As an educational tool, the update includes a diagram that indicates the areas of the stomach, duodenum, jejunum, and ileum that may be altered by bariatric surgery and how they factor into micronutrient absorption.

“It makes it easier to see why certain surgical procedures are more likely to cause certain deficiencies,” Patel said.

 

Postsurgery Patient Management

Post surgery, clinicians should monitor patients for other problems that could affect nutrient absorption, including food intolerances, drug-nutrient interactions, and increased gastrointestinal transit time.

Patel and coauthors discussed the pros and cons of multivitamin mineral supplement formulations as well as specific vitamin and mineral recommendations for patients undergoing certain metabolic or bariatric surgery procedures. They included three supplemental cases in the appendix to illustrate supplementation recommendations and long-term maintenance suggestions.

“It’s important to remember that most of these deficiencies present without many clinical symptoms, so it becomes essential to screen for them and repeat as needed,” Patel said.

The update also tackles postoperative nutritional assessments and diet progression. No evidence supports following one postsurgical diet progression protocol over another, but they generally proceed from a clear liquid diet to foods with normal textures, the authors noted. Clinicians should adapt them according to the procedure type, they added.

In addition, clinicians must troubleshoot any nutrition-related concerns, including constipation, dehydration, nausea, heartburn, and fatigue, for up to a year after surgery, they wrote.

Metabolic and bariatric surgery patients should be evaluated annually at a minimum, if not more frequently, to gauge nutritional health, the authors wrote. Treating obesity as a disease involves more than weight loss — instead, it’s about improving the quality of life of patients through procedures, medications, and lifestyle modifications, they added.

 

Track New Developments

With ongoing changes in the field of metabolic and bariatric surgery, it’s helpful for clinicians to remain updated about new approaches across various disciplines linked to obesity management and treatment, said Christina Poa-Li, MD, a surgeon at Huntington Health Medical Center, affiliated with Cedars-Sinai Health System, in Pasadena, California, who was not involved in developing the updated practice statement.

“For example, the rapidly growing prescription of anti-obesity medications and their use in both preoperative and postoperative surgical patients drastically affect their nutrition,” she said. “Providers of various backgrounds and specialties will benefit from the most updated guidance on evaluating patient nutrition.”

Clinicians should consider expanding their patient population to include those with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis or metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, Poa-Li said.

“These patient subpopulations may not have been considered for bariatric surgery or even referral to a bariatric surgeon for consultation previously,” she said. “It is important to increase awareness among clinicians of the potential benefits for metabolic and bariatric surgery for these patients.”

The report didn’t receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Patel and Poa-Li reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with obesity and compensated cirrhosis, bariatric surgery may significantly lower the risk of developing serious liver disease complications, according to a recent study by Cleveland Clinic researchers.

Compared with patients who received medical therapy alone, those who underwent bariatric surgery had a 72% lower risk of developing serious complications of liver disease and an 80% lower risk for progression to decompensated cirrhosis.

The results could have major implications for patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), particularly given that about 20% of patients with MASH progress to cirrhosis, the researchers said.

 

“Currently, lifestyle intervention is the only therapeutic recommendation for compensated MASH-related cirrhosis,” said Steven Nissen, MD, the senior author and chief academic officer of the Miller Family Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“However, lifestyle changes alone rarely provide the weight loss and metabolic changes needed to reduce the risk of liver complications in this patient population,” he said. “This study shows that bariatric surgery is an effective treatment that can influence the trajectory of cirrhosis progression in select patients.”

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

 

Significantly Reduced Risks

As part of the Surgical Procedures Eliminate Compensated Cirrhosis in Advancing Long-Term (SPECCIAL) observational study, Nissen and colleagues compared the long-term effects of metabolic surgery and medical treatment in patients with obesity and compensated, biopsy-proven MASH-related cirrhosis. They looked for six major adverse liver outcomes (MALO): ascites, variceal hemorrhage, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, and all-cause mortality.

Among nearly 37,000 patients who underwent liver biopsy at the Cleveland Clinic Health System between 1995 and 2020, the research team identified 168 patients (69.6% women) with MASH-related cirrhosis, Child-Pugh class A, and model for end-stage liver disease scores ≤ 10. Among those, 62 underwent metabolic surgery (37 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 25 sleeve gastrectomy) and 106 had nonsurgical treatment.

After overlap weighting, the groups had balanced baseline characteristics, including mean body mass index of 42.7, Fibrosis-4 score of 2.1, albumin of 4.1 g/dL, bilirubin of 0.6 mg/dL, and Elixhauser comorbidity index of 9. In each group, 84.5% had type 2 diabetes and 79.1% had Ishak fibrosis stage 6.

Overall, the 15-year cumulative incidence of MALO was 20.9% in the surgical group and 46.4% in the nonsurgical group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.28; P = .003), with MALO occurring in 10 surgical patients and 42 nonsurgical patients.

Assuming a causal effect, the number needed to treat with metabolic surgery to avoid one incidence of MALO over a 15-year timespan was 4.5. 

The 15-year incidence of MALO was similar between surgical methods, with 20.1% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 19.9% for sleeve gastrectomy.

In addition, the 15-year cumulative incidence of progression to decompensated cirrhosis was 15.6% in the surgical group and 30.7% in the nonsurgical group (aHR, 0.2; P = .01), with decompensation occurring in four surgical patients and 33 nonsurgical patients.

At 15 years, patients in the surgical group lost 31.6 kg or about 26.6% of their weight, and those in the nonsurgical group lost 10.7 kg or 9.8%.

Among patients with type 2 diabetes at baseline, metabolic surgery was associated with a reduction in hemoglobin A1c levels, as well as diabetes remission for some patients.

 

Potential to Fill an Unmet Need

Previous studies have indicated that bariatric surgery can effectively treat noncirrhotic MASH and lead to histologic resolution of MASH. In a 2021 study, Nissen and colleagues found bariatric surgery was associated with a lower risk for MALO and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with biopsy-proven MASH without cirrhosis. Now, Nissen said, the SPECCIAL study indicates surgery may be a good option for MASH-related cirrhosis as well.

The study authors also noted that similar findings are theoretically possible from medical therapies, given the emergence of a new generation of anti-obesity medications. In this study, 16.8% of the surgical group and 14.3% of the nonsurgical group took semaglutide or tirzepatide at some point during the follow-up period.

“Patients with MASH-related cirrhosis have extremely limited treatment options,” said Sobia Laique, MD, study coauthor and a transplant hepatologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in MASH-related cirrhosis. She cofounded the Cleveland Clinic’s task force on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) to improve screening, management, and patient outcomes for MASLD and related comorbidities.

“No therapeutic interventions have demonstrated efficacy in mitigating the risk of severe liver complications for these patients,” she said. “This underscores a critical unmet need for the development of effective therapies specifically targeting patients with compensated MASH-related cirrhosis.”

No funding was reported for this study. Several authors reported receiving grant funding, consultant fees, and advisory roles for various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with obesity and compensated cirrhosis, bariatric surgery may significantly lower the risk of developing serious liver disease complications, according to a recent study by Cleveland Clinic researchers.

Compared with patients who received medical therapy alone, those who underwent bariatric surgery had a 72% lower risk of developing serious complications of liver disease and an 80% lower risk for progression to decompensated cirrhosis.

The results could have major implications for patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), particularly given that about 20% of patients with MASH progress to cirrhosis, the researchers said.

 

“Currently, lifestyle intervention is the only therapeutic recommendation for compensated MASH-related cirrhosis,” said Steven Nissen, MD, the senior author and chief academic officer of the Miller Family Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“However, lifestyle changes alone rarely provide the weight loss and metabolic changes needed to reduce the risk of liver complications in this patient population,” he said. “This study shows that bariatric surgery is an effective treatment that can influence the trajectory of cirrhosis progression in select patients.”

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

 

Significantly Reduced Risks

As part of the Surgical Procedures Eliminate Compensated Cirrhosis in Advancing Long-Term (SPECCIAL) observational study, Nissen and colleagues compared the long-term effects of metabolic surgery and medical treatment in patients with obesity and compensated, biopsy-proven MASH-related cirrhosis. They looked for six major adverse liver outcomes (MALO): ascites, variceal hemorrhage, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, and all-cause mortality.

Among nearly 37,000 patients who underwent liver biopsy at the Cleveland Clinic Health System between 1995 and 2020, the research team identified 168 patients (69.6% women) with MASH-related cirrhosis, Child-Pugh class A, and model for end-stage liver disease scores ≤ 10. Among those, 62 underwent metabolic surgery (37 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 25 sleeve gastrectomy) and 106 had nonsurgical treatment.

After overlap weighting, the groups had balanced baseline characteristics, including mean body mass index of 42.7, Fibrosis-4 score of 2.1, albumin of 4.1 g/dL, bilirubin of 0.6 mg/dL, and Elixhauser comorbidity index of 9. In each group, 84.5% had type 2 diabetes and 79.1% had Ishak fibrosis stage 6.

Overall, the 15-year cumulative incidence of MALO was 20.9% in the surgical group and 46.4% in the nonsurgical group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.28; P = .003), with MALO occurring in 10 surgical patients and 42 nonsurgical patients.

Assuming a causal effect, the number needed to treat with metabolic surgery to avoid one incidence of MALO over a 15-year timespan was 4.5. 

The 15-year incidence of MALO was similar between surgical methods, with 20.1% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 19.9% for sleeve gastrectomy.

In addition, the 15-year cumulative incidence of progression to decompensated cirrhosis was 15.6% in the surgical group and 30.7% in the nonsurgical group (aHR, 0.2; P = .01), with decompensation occurring in four surgical patients and 33 nonsurgical patients.

At 15 years, patients in the surgical group lost 31.6 kg or about 26.6% of their weight, and those in the nonsurgical group lost 10.7 kg or 9.8%.

Among patients with type 2 diabetes at baseline, metabolic surgery was associated with a reduction in hemoglobin A1c levels, as well as diabetes remission for some patients.

 

Potential to Fill an Unmet Need

Previous studies have indicated that bariatric surgery can effectively treat noncirrhotic MASH and lead to histologic resolution of MASH. In a 2021 study, Nissen and colleagues found bariatric surgery was associated with a lower risk for MALO and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with biopsy-proven MASH without cirrhosis. Now, Nissen said, the SPECCIAL study indicates surgery may be a good option for MASH-related cirrhosis as well.

The study authors also noted that similar findings are theoretically possible from medical therapies, given the emergence of a new generation of anti-obesity medications. In this study, 16.8% of the surgical group and 14.3% of the nonsurgical group took semaglutide or tirzepatide at some point during the follow-up period.

“Patients with MASH-related cirrhosis have extremely limited treatment options,” said Sobia Laique, MD, study coauthor and a transplant hepatologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in MASH-related cirrhosis. She cofounded the Cleveland Clinic’s task force on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) to improve screening, management, and patient outcomes for MASLD and related comorbidities.

“No therapeutic interventions have demonstrated efficacy in mitigating the risk of severe liver complications for these patients,” she said. “This underscores a critical unmet need for the development of effective therapies specifically targeting patients with compensated MASH-related cirrhosis.”

No funding was reported for this study. Several authors reported receiving grant funding, consultant fees, and advisory roles for various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with obesity and compensated cirrhosis, bariatric surgery may significantly lower the risk of developing serious liver disease complications, according to a recent study by Cleveland Clinic researchers.

Compared with patients who received medical therapy alone, those who underwent bariatric surgery had a 72% lower risk of developing serious complications of liver disease and an 80% lower risk for progression to decompensated cirrhosis.

The results could have major implications for patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH), particularly given that about 20% of patients with MASH progress to cirrhosis, the researchers said.

 

“Currently, lifestyle intervention is the only therapeutic recommendation for compensated MASH-related cirrhosis,” said Steven Nissen, MD, the senior author and chief academic officer of the Miller Family Heart, Vascular, and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“However, lifestyle changes alone rarely provide the weight loss and metabolic changes needed to reduce the risk of liver complications in this patient population,” he said. “This study shows that bariatric surgery is an effective treatment that can influence the trajectory of cirrhosis progression in select patients.”

The study was published online in Nature Medicine.

 

Significantly Reduced Risks

As part of the Surgical Procedures Eliminate Compensated Cirrhosis in Advancing Long-Term (SPECCIAL) observational study, Nissen and colleagues compared the long-term effects of metabolic surgery and medical treatment in patients with obesity and compensated, biopsy-proven MASH-related cirrhosis. They looked for six major adverse liver outcomes (MALO): ascites, variceal hemorrhage, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, and all-cause mortality.

Among nearly 37,000 patients who underwent liver biopsy at the Cleveland Clinic Health System between 1995 and 2020, the research team identified 168 patients (69.6% women) with MASH-related cirrhosis, Child-Pugh class A, and model for end-stage liver disease scores ≤ 10. Among those, 62 underwent metabolic surgery (37 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 25 sleeve gastrectomy) and 106 had nonsurgical treatment.

After overlap weighting, the groups had balanced baseline characteristics, including mean body mass index of 42.7, Fibrosis-4 score of 2.1, albumin of 4.1 g/dL, bilirubin of 0.6 mg/dL, and Elixhauser comorbidity index of 9. In each group, 84.5% had type 2 diabetes and 79.1% had Ishak fibrosis stage 6.

Overall, the 15-year cumulative incidence of MALO was 20.9% in the surgical group and 46.4% in the nonsurgical group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.28; P = .003), with MALO occurring in 10 surgical patients and 42 nonsurgical patients.

Assuming a causal effect, the number needed to treat with metabolic surgery to avoid one incidence of MALO over a 15-year timespan was 4.5. 

The 15-year incidence of MALO was similar between surgical methods, with 20.1% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 19.9% for sleeve gastrectomy.

In addition, the 15-year cumulative incidence of progression to decompensated cirrhosis was 15.6% in the surgical group and 30.7% in the nonsurgical group (aHR, 0.2; P = .01), with decompensation occurring in four surgical patients and 33 nonsurgical patients.

At 15 years, patients in the surgical group lost 31.6 kg or about 26.6% of their weight, and those in the nonsurgical group lost 10.7 kg or 9.8%.

Among patients with type 2 diabetes at baseline, metabolic surgery was associated with a reduction in hemoglobin A1c levels, as well as diabetes remission for some patients.

 

Potential to Fill an Unmet Need

Previous studies have indicated that bariatric surgery can effectively treat noncirrhotic MASH and lead to histologic resolution of MASH. In a 2021 study, Nissen and colleagues found bariatric surgery was associated with a lower risk for MALO and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with biopsy-proven MASH without cirrhosis. Now, Nissen said, the SPECCIAL study indicates surgery may be a good option for MASH-related cirrhosis as well.

The study authors also noted that similar findings are theoretically possible from medical therapies, given the emergence of a new generation of anti-obesity medications. In this study, 16.8% of the surgical group and 14.3% of the nonsurgical group took semaglutide or tirzepatide at some point during the follow-up period.

“Patients with MASH-related cirrhosis have extremely limited treatment options,” said Sobia Laique, MD, study coauthor and a transplant hepatologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in MASH-related cirrhosis. She cofounded the Cleveland Clinic’s task force on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) to improve screening, management, and patient outcomes for MASLD and related comorbidities.

“No therapeutic interventions have demonstrated efficacy in mitigating the risk of severe liver complications for these patients,” she said. “This underscores a critical unmet need for the development of effective therapies specifically targeting patients with compensated MASH-related cirrhosis.”

No funding was reported for this study. Several authors reported receiving grant funding, consultant fees, and advisory roles for various pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including new biologics approved for treatment and the elimination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for diagnosis, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

As an update to the 2013 version, the guideline covers paradigm-shifting changes in EoE knowledge about risk factors, pathogenesis, validated outcome metrics, new nomenclature, and pediatric-specific considerations.

 

“There have been multiple advances across diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and other aspects of EoE management in the decade since the last ACG guidelines and in the 5 years since the last AGA [American Gastroenterological Association] guidelines, including new drug approvals globally for EoE,” said lead author Evan Dellon, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

“The guidelines aimed to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations that could be implemented in daily practice, as well as to provide advice on a number of aspects of diagnosis and management of EoE where there might not be a definitive evidence base, but where clinical questions commonly arise,” he said.

The update was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

EoE Diagnosis

EoE is a chronic allergen-induced, type 2 immune-mediated disease of the esophagus, which is characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (such as dysphagia and food impaction) and an eosinophilic predominant infiltrate in the esophagus, the authors wrote.

A diagnosis should be based on the presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, particularly after ruling out non-EoE disorders. A critical change from the 2013 guideline eliminates the requirement of a PPI trial for diagnosis.

Endoscopic evaluation is critical for diagnosis, assessing treatment response, and long-term monitoring, the authors wrote. The guideline advises using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) to characterize endoscopic findings, a recommendation that was also endorsed in 2022 guidelines by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EREFS classifies five key EoE features, including edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures, by severity.

To assess for histologic features of EoE, at least six esophageal biopsies should be taken from at least two esophageal levels (such as proximal/mid and distal halves), specifically targeted in areas of furrows or exudates.

In addition, peak eosinophil counts should be quantified on esophageal biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE, which will help with subsequent management and monitoring.

As new research expands on the role of mast cells, T cells, basophils, NK cells, and fibroblasts in EoE, the authors postulate that using the EoE histologic scoring system may become more relevant in the future, particularly around findings such as persistent basal zone hyperplasia or lamina propria fibrosis as drivers of ongoing symptoms when eosinophil counts decline.

 

A Better Understanding of Pathogenesis 

“While EoE is considered a relatively new disease, there has been a concerted effort by researchers and clinicians to work together, in partnership with patients, to better understand the basic disease pathogenesis and develop the best treatment approaches,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. Rothenberg wasn’t involved with the update.

“A lot of progress has been made since the initial thought that esophageal eosinophilia was a ramification of acid reflux disease,” said Rothenberg, the founding director and a principal investigator of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.

“We now understand that the esophagus is an immune-responsive organ and that food allergies can be manifested as EoE. Investment in science is paying off as the basic disease pathoetiology has been uncovered, and this has led to successful strategies for disease intervention, including precision therapy.”

When treating EoE, the goals include improving patient symptoms and quality of life, improving endoscopic and histologic findings, normalizing growth and development in children, maintaining nutrition, and preventing complications such as food impaction or perforation.

This means addressing both the inflammatory and fibrostenotic aspects of the disease, the authors wrote. Pharmacologic or dietary therapies can treat the inflammatory component and may lead to esophageal improvements, whereas esophageal dilation can treat strictures and luminal narrowing. Notably, treatment choices should be individualized based on disease characteristics and patient preferences.

In general, PPIs are suggested as treatment, even beyond reflux symptoms. In EoE, PPIs can decrease eotaxin-3 cytokines that recruit eosinophils to the esophagus, improve esophageal barrier function, and maintain esophageal epithelial transcriptional homeostasis. Although potassium-competitive acid blocker medications have been studied in EoE, data remains limited. H2 receptor blockers don’t appear to be effective for EoE.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids have shown histologic efficacy, the authors reported, particularly in recent phase 3 trials of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) and budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT). BOS was approved for EoE by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024, and BOT was approved for EoE by the European Medicines Agency in 2018.

In terms of dietary elimination, a range of options appear to be effective for patients, including the six-food elimination diet, which has been studied most. However, less restrictive or step-up approaches (such as four-food elimination or one-food elimination of milk) may be better for patients, the authors wrote. Ultimately, the “optimal” choice is one that patients and families can adhere to and have the resources to complete.

In addition, they noted that allergy test-directed elimination diets aren’t currently recommended because EoE has delayed hypersensitivity, so skin prick, patch, or serum Ig allergy tests tend to have limited success in predicting EoE food triggers.

In terms of biologic treatments, dupilumab is recommended for ages 12 years or older who don’t respond to PPI therapy, as well as suggested for ages 1-11 years based on previous clinical trial data. The FDA approved the use of dupilumab for ages 1-11 years in February 2024.

In this update, the authors declined to make recommendations about other biologics such as cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. They also advised against using omaluzumab as a treatment for EoE.

 

“This new 2025 guideline summarizes and synthesizes key studies in support of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, dietary therapy, and biologics for EoE. Additionally, the guidelines are clinically relevant in providing practical suggestions (such as medication dosing) and expert opinions on key concepts in managing EoE,” said Joy Weiling Chang, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“It’s an exciting time to take care of patients with EoE with many new therapies, but the rapidly evolving options can be overwhelming,” said Chang, who wasn’t involved with the update. “Since there are no clinical effectiveness studies between the various treatments, and therapies can differ so much (with delivery and daily use, monitoring, cost), electing EoE treatment is an ideal opportunity for shared decision-making. Equipped with these clinical guidelines, clinicians can be empowered to elicit and consider patient preferences and values in the management of this chronic disease.”

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Dellon and Rothenberg reported receiving research funding and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including new biologics approved for treatment and the elimination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for diagnosis, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

As an update to the 2013 version, the guideline covers paradigm-shifting changes in EoE knowledge about risk factors, pathogenesis, validated outcome metrics, new nomenclature, and pediatric-specific considerations.

 

“There have been multiple advances across diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and other aspects of EoE management in the decade since the last ACG guidelines and in the 5 years since the last AGA [American Gastroenterological Association] guidelines, including new drug approvals globally for EoE,” said lead author Evan Dellon, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

“The guidelines aimed to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations that could be implemented in daily practice, as well as to provide advice on a number of aspects of diagnosis and management of EoE where there might not be a definitive evidence base, but where clinical questions commonly arise,” he said.

The update was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

EoE Diagnosis

EoE is a chronic allergen-induced, type 2 immune-mediated disease of the esophagus, which is characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (such as dysphagia and food impaction) and an eosinophilic predominant infiltrate in the esophagus, the authors wrote.

A diagnosis should be based on the presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, particularly after ruling out non-EoE disorders. A critical change from the 2013 guideline eliminates the requirement of a PPI trial for diagnosis.

Endoscopic evaluation is critical for diagnosis, assessing treatment response, and long-term monitoring, the authors wrote. The guideline advises using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) to characterize endoscopic findings, a recommendation that was also endorsed in 2022 guidelines by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EREFS classifies five key EoE features, including edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures, by severity.

To assess for histologic features of EoE, at least six esophageal biopsies should be taken from at least two esophageal levels (such as proximal/mid and distal halves), specifically targeted in areas of furrows or exudates.

In addition, peak eosinophil counts should be quantified on esophageal biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE, which will help with subsequent management and monitoring.

As new research expands on the role of mast cells, T cells, basophils, NK cells, and fibroblasts in EoE, the authors postulate that using the EoE histologic scoring system may become more relevant in the future, particularly around findings such as persistent basal zone hyperplasia or lamina propria fibrosis as drivers of ongoing symptoms when eosinophil counts decline.

 

A Better Understanding of Pathogenesis 

“While EoE is considered a relatively new disease, there has been a concerted effort by researchers and clinicians to work together, in partnership with patients, to better understand the basic disease pathogenesis and develop the best treatment approaches,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. Rothenberg wasn’t involved with the update.

“A lot of progress has been made since the initial thought that esophageal eosinophilia was a ramification of acid reflux disease,” said Rothenberg, the founding director and a principal investigator of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.

“We now understand that the esophagus is an immune-responsive organ and that food allergies can be manifested as EoE. Investment in science is paying off as the basic disease pathoetiology has been uncovered, and this has led to successful strategies for disease intervention, including precision therapy.”

When treating EoE, the goals include improving patient symptoms and quality of life, improving endoscopic and histologic findings, normalizing growth and development in children, maintaining nutrition, and preventing complications such as food impaction or perforation.

This means addressing both the inflammatory and fibrostenotic aspects of the disease, the authors wrote. Pharmacologic or dietary therapies can treat the inflammatory component and may lead to esophageal improvements, whereas esophageal dilation can treat strictures and luminal narrowing. Notably, treatment choices should be individualized based on disease characteristics and patient preferences.

In general, PPIs are suggested as treatment, even beyond reflux symptoms. In EoE, PPIs can decrease eotaxin-3 cytokines that recruit eosinophils to the esophagus, improve esophageal barrier function, and maintain esophageal epithelial transcriptional homeostasis. Although potassium-competitive acid blocker medications have been studied in EoE, data remains limited. H2 receptor blockers don’t appear to be effective for EoE.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids have shown histologic efficacy, the authors reported, particularly in recent phase 3 trials of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) and budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT). BOS was approved for EoE by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024, and BOT was approved for EoE by the European Medicines Agency in 2018.

In terms of dietary elimination, a range of options appear to be effective for patients, including the six-food elimination diet, which has been studied most. However, less restrictive or step-up approaches (such as four-food elimination or one-food elimination of milk) may be better for patients, the authors wrote. Ultimately, the “optimal” choice is one that patients and families can adhere to and have the resources to complete.

In addition, they noted that allergy test-directed elimination diets aren’t currently recommended because EoE has delayed hypersensitivity, so skin prick, patch, or serum Ig allergy tests tend to have limited success in predicting EoE food triggers.

In terms of biologic treatments, dupilumab is recommended for ages 12 years or older who don’t respond to PPI therapy, as well as suggested for ages 1-11 years based on previous clinical trial data. The FDA approved the use of dupilumab for ages 1-11 years in February 2024.

In this update, the authors declined to make recommendations about other biologics such as cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. They also advised against using omaluzumab as a treatment for EoE.

 

“This new 2025 guideline summarizes and synthesizes key studies in support of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, dietary therapy, and biologics for EoE. Additionally, the guidelines are clinically relevant in providing practical suggestions (such as medication dosing) and expert opinions on key concepts in managing EoE,” said Joy Weiling Chang, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“It’s an exciting time to take care of patients with EoE with many new therapies, but the rapidly evolving options can be overwhelming,” said Chang, who wasn’t involved with the update. “Since there are no clinical effectiveness studies between the various treatments, and therapies can differ so much (with delivery and daily use, monitoring, cost), electing EoE treatment is an ideal opportunity for shared decision-making. Equipped with these clinical guidelines, clinicians can be empowered to elicit and consider patient preferences and values in the management of this chronic disease.”

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Dellon and Rothenberg reported receiving research funding and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians should be aware of the latest developments in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), including new biologics approved for treatment and the elimination of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) trials for diagnosis, according to a new clinical guideline from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

As an update to the 2013 version, the guideline covers paradigm-shifting changes in EoE knowledge about risk factors, pathogenesis, validated outcome metrics, new nomenclature, and pediatric-specific considerations.

 

“There have been multiple advances across diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and other aspects of EoE management in the decade since the last ACG guidelines and in the 5 years since the last AGA [American Gastroenterological Association] guidelines, including new drug approvals globally for EoE,” said lead author Evan Dellon, MD, AGAF, professor of gastroenterology and hepatology and director of the Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.

“The guidelines aimed to provide practical and evidence-based recommendations that could be implemented in daily practice, as well as to provide advice on a number of aspects of diagnosis and management of EoE where there might not be a definitive evidence base, but where clinical questions commonly arise,” he said.

The update was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

 

EoE Diagnosis

EoE is a chronic allergen-induced, type 2 immune-mediated disease of the esophagus, which is characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (such as dysphagia and food impaction) and an eosinophilic predominant infiltrate in the esophagus, the authors wrote.

A diagnosis should be based on the presence of esophageal dysfunction symptoms and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field on esophageal biopsy, particularly after ruling out non-EoE disorders. A critical change from the 2013 guideline eliminates the requirement of a PPI trial for diagnosis.

Endoscopic evaluation is critical for diagnosis, assessing treatment response, and long-term monitoring, the authors wrote. The guideline advises using the EoE endoscopic reference score (EREFS) to characterize endoscopic findings, a recommendation that was also endorsed in 2022 guidelines by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. EREFS classifies five key EoE features, including edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures, by severity.

To assess for histologic features of EoE, at least six esophageal biopsies should be taken from at least two esophageal levels (such as proximal/mid and distal halves), specifically targeted in areas of furrows or exudates.

In addition, peak eosinophil counts should be quantified on esophageal biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE, which will help with subsequent management and monitoring.

As new research expands on the role of mast cells, T cells, basophils, NK cells, and fibroblasts in EoE, the authors postulate that using the EoE histologic scoring system may become more relevant in the future, particularly around findings such as persistent basal zone hyperplasia or lamina propria fibrosis as drivers of ongoing symptoms when eosinophil counts decline.

 

A Better Understanding of Pathogenesis 

“While EoE is considered a relatively new disease, there has been a concerted effort by researchers and clinicians to work together, in partnership with patients, to better understand the basic disease pathogenesis and develop the best treatment approaches,” said Marc Rothenberg, MD, PhD, director of allergy and immunology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio. Rothenberg wasn’t involved with the update.

“A lot of progress has been made since the initial thought that esophageal eosinophilia was a ramification of acid reflux disease,” said Rothenberg, the founding director and a principal investigator of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers.

“We now understand that the esophagus is an immune-responsive organ and that food allergies can be manifested as EoE. Investment in science is paying off as the basic disease pathoetiology has been uncovered, and this has led to successful strategies for disease intervention, including precision therapy.”

When treating EoE, the goals include improving patient symptoms and quality of life, improving endoscopic and histologic findings, normalizing growth and development in children, maintaining nutrition, and preventing complications such as food impaction or perforation.

This means addressing both the inflammatory and fibrostenotic aspects of the disease, the authors wrote. Pharmacologic or dietary therapies can treat the inflammatory component and may lead to esophageal improvements, whereas esophageal dilation can treat strictures and luminal narrowing. Notably, treatment choices should be individualized based on disease characteristics and patient preferences.

In general, PPIs are suggested as treatment, even beyond reflux symptoms. In EoE, PPIs can decrease eotaxin-3 cytokines that recruit eosinophils to the esophagus, improve esophageal barrier function, and maintain esophageal epithelial transcriptional homeostasis. Although potassium-competitive acid blocker medications have been studied in EoE, data remains limited. H2 receptor blockers don’t appear to be effective for EoE.

Swallowed topical corticosteroids have shown histologic efficacy, the authors reported, particularly in recent phase 3 trials of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) and budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT). BOS was approved for EoE by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2024, and BOT was approved for EoE by the European Medicines Agency in 2018.

In terms of dietary elimination, a range of options appear to be effective for patients, including the six-food elimination diet, which has been studied most. However, less restrictive or step-up approaches (such as four-food elimination or one-food elimination of milk) may be better for patients, the authors wrote. Ultimately, the “optimal” choice is one that patients and families can adhere to and have the resources to complete.

In addition, they noted that allergy test-directed elimination diets aren’t currently recommended because EoE has delayed hypersensitivity, so skin prick, patch, or serum Ig allergy tests tend to have limited success in predicting EoE food triggers.

In terms of biologic treatments, dupilumab is recommended for ages 12 years or older who don’t respond to PPI therapy, as well as suggested for ages 1-11 years based on previous clinical trial data. The FDA approved the use of dupilumab for ages 1-11 years in February 2024.

In this update, the authors declined to make recommendations about other biologics such as cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. They also advised against using omaluzumab as a treatment for EoE.

 

“This new 2025 guideline summarizes and synthesizes key studies in support of proton pump inhibitors, topical steroids, dietary therapy, and biologics for EoE. Additionally, the guidelines are clinically relevant in providing practical suggestions (such as medication dosing) and expert opinions on key concepts in managing EoE,” said Joy Weiling Chang, MD, assistant professor of gastroenterology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in patient-physician preferences and decision-making in EoE care.

“It’s an exciting time to take care of patients with EoE with many new therapies, but the rapidly evolving options can be overwhelming,” said Chang, who wasn’t involved with the update. “Since there are no clinical effectiveness studies between the various treatments, and therapies can differ so much (with delivery and daily use, monitoring, cost), electing EoE treatment is an ideal opportunity for shared decision-making. Equipped with these clinical guidelines, clinicians can be empowered to elicit and consider patient preferences and values in the management of this chronic disease.”

The authors received no specific funding for this update. Dellon and Rothenberg reported receiving research funding and consultant roles with numerous pharmaceutical companies and organizations. Chang 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.

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.

Obesity appears to be associated with malignant progression of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.

“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.

“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Analyzing Risk

BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.

Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.

Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.

Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.

Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.

In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.

Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).

Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).

“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”

 

Considering Risk

This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.

“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”

Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.

“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.

One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity appears to be associated with malignant progression of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.

“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.

“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Analyzing Risk

BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.

Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.

Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.

Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.

Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.

In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.

Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).

Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).

“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”

 

Considering Risk

This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.

“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”

Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.

“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.

One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Obesity appears to be associated with malignant progression of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.

“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.

“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”

The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

 

Analyzing Risk

BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.

Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.

Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.

Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.

Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.

Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.

In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.

Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).

Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).

“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”

 

Considering Risk

This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.

Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.

“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”

Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.

“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.

One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new prognostic model could potentially predict and stratify the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who are noncirrhotic and not indicated for antiviral treatment.

The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.

“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”

The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Validating reREACH-B

During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.

In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log₁₀ IU/mL.

In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).

The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log₁₀ IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log₁₀ IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.

In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.

In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.

Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.

Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log₁₀ IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log₁₀ IU/mL.

For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.

In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.

“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.

 

Considering Prognostic Models

This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”

For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log₁₀ IU/mL or > 8 log₁₀ IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log₁₀ IU/mL.

“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”

The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.

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

A new prognostic model could potentially predict and stratify the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who are noncirrhotic and not indicated for antiviral treatment.

The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.

“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”

The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Validating reREACH-B

During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.

In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log₁₀ IU/mL.

In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).

The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log₁₀ IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log₁₀ IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.

In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.

In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.

Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.

Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log₁₀ IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log₁₀ IU/mL.

For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.

In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.

“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.

 

Considering Prognostic Models

This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”

For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log₁₀ IU/mL or > 8 log₁₀ IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log₁₀ IU/mL.

“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”

The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.

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

A new prognostic model could potentially predict and stratify the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) among patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who are noncirrhotic and not indicated for antiviral treatment.

The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.

“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”

The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

Validating reREACH-B

During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.

In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log₁₀ IU/mL.

In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).

The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.

Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log₁₀ IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log₁₀ IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.

In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.

In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.

Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.

Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log₁₀ IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log₁₀ IU/mL.

For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.

In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.

“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.

 

Considering Prognostic Models

This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”

For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log₁₀ IU/mL or > 8 log₁₀ IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log₁₀ IU/mL.

“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”

The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.

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