GI and Hepatology News

PHILADELPHIA — Artificial intelligence–assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) with computer-aided detection (CADe) technology may improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but it’s also associated with higher detection and removal of non-neoplastic lesions, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

In particular, AIAC led to a statistically and clinically significant increase in the proportion of exams that detected lesions that after resection were all found to be benign, compared with unassisted colonoscopy.

University of Minnesota

“The potential implications include increased procedural risks, as well as costs, such as pathology costs and other healthcare expenditures, without any additional colorectal cancer prevention benefit,” said lead author Tessa Herman, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

In a previous implementation trial at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Herman and colleagues compared ADR between a group of patients undergoing AIAC and a historical cohort of patients who had non–AI-assisted colonoscopy.

In this subsequent study, the research team conducted an ad hoc analysis of data from the previous trial to determine the proportion of colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, and positive fecal immunochemical tests which detect lesions that after resection are all found to be benign. They excluded colonoscopies conducted for diagnostic indications or inflammatory bowel disease, as well as incomplete colonoscopies, and for those with inadequate bowel preparation.

Overall, they studied 441 non-AIAC colonoscopies (between November 2022 and April 2023) and 599 AIAC colonoscopies (between May 2023 and October 2023). The groups were balanced, and there were no significant differences in patient demographics, endoscopists, AI technology, procedure time, or average number of polyps detected.

In the non-AIAC cohort, 37 cases (8.4%) had polypectomies that revealed only benign lesions, as compared with 74 cases (12.4%) in the AIAC cohort. The most common resected lesions were benign colonic mucosa, lymphoid aggregates, and hyperplastic polyps.

Applied to the 15 million colonoscopies conducted in the United States per year, the findings indicate that full adoption of AIAC could result in about 600,000 more colonoscopies in which only benign, nonadenomatous lesions are removed, compared with traditional colonoscopy, Herman said.

More study of AIAC is needed, said Daniel Pambianco, MD, managing partner of GastroHealth-Charlottesville in Virginia and the 2023 ACG president. “This technology is in a fledging stage, and the more data we have, the more helpful it’ll be to know if we’re removing the right lesions at a better rate.”

“There’s a hope that assistance will improve detection, removal of polyps, and ultimately, colon cancer,” added Pambianco, who comoderated the session on colorectal cancer prevention.

Future longitudinal studies should monitor both ADR and benign lesion resection rates with AIAC, and modeling studies could determine the benefits and costs of the technology, Herman said. In addition, development of hybrid CADe and computer-aided diagnosis systems could mitigate concerns about excessive benign lesion resection with AI tools.

Valley Medical Group

Clinicians already are able to find colon mucosa that are polypoid or lymphoid aggregates during colonoscopy without AI assistance, said the session’s comoderator, Sita Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

“Instead, we need a tool that can help us to not remove these polyps that are not neoplastic,” she said. “With future developments, we may be able to take it to the next step where the algorithm tells us that it’s benign and not to touch it.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Herman, Pambianco, and Chokhavatia reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Artificial intelligence–assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) with computer-aided detection (CADe) technology may improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but it’s also associated with higher detection and removal of non-neoplastic lesions, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

In particular, AIAC led to a statistically and clinically significant increase in the proportion of exams that detected lesions that after resection were all found to be benign, compared with unassisted colonoscopy.

University of Minnesota

“The potential implications include increased procedural risks, as well as costs, such as pathology costs and other healthcare expenditures, without any additional colorectal cancer prevention benefit,” said lead author Tessa Herman, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

In a previous implementation trial at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Herman and colleagues compared ADR between a group of patients undergoing AIAC and a historical cohort of patients who had non–AI-assisted colonoscopy.

In this subsequent study, the research team conducted an ad hoc analysis of data from the previous trial to determine the proportion of colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, and positive fecal immunochemical tests which detect lesions that after resection are all found to be benign. They excluded colonoscopies conducted for diagnostic indications or inflammatory bowel disease, as well as incomplete colonoscopies, and for those with inadequate bowel preparation.

Overall, they studied 441 non-AIAC colonoscopies (between November 2022 and April 2023) and 599 AIAC colonoscopies (between May 2023 and October 2023). The groups were balanced, and there were no significant differences in patient demographics, endoscopists, AI technology, procedure time, or average number of polyps detected.

In the non-AIAC cohort, 37 cases (8.4%) had polypectomies that revealed only benign lesions, as compared with 74 cases (12.4%) in the AIAC cohort. The most common resected lesions were benign colonic mucosa, lymphoid aggregates, and hyperplastic polyps.

Applied to the 15 million colonoscopies conducted in the United States per year, the findings indicate that full adoption of AIAC could result in about 600,000 more colonoscopies in which only benign, nonadenomatous lesions are removed, compared with traditional colonoscopy, Herman said.

More study of AIAC is needed, said Daniel Pambianco, MD, managing partner of GastroHealth-Charlottesville in Virginia and the 2023 ACG president. “This technology is in a fledging stage, and the more data we have, the more helpful it’ll be to know if we’re removing the right lesions at a better rate.”

“There’s a hope that assistance will improve detection, removal of polyps, and ultimately, colon cancer,” added Pambianco, who comoderated the session on colorectal cancer prevention.

Future longitudinal studies should monitor both ADR and benign lesion resection rates with AIAC, and modeling studies could determine the benefits and costs of the technology, Herman said. In addition, development of hybrid CADe and computer-aided diagnosis systems could mitigate concerns about excessive benign lesion resection with AI tools.

Valley Medical Group

Clinicians already are able to find colon mucosa that are polypoid or lymphoid aggregates during colonoscopy without AI assistance, said the session’s comoderator, Sita Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

“Instead, we need a tool that can help us to not remove these polyps that are not neoplastic,” she said. “With future developments, we may be able to take it to the next step where the algorithm tells us that it’s benign and not to touch it.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Herman, Pambianco, and Chokhavatia reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — Artificial intelligence–assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) with computer-aided detection (CADe) technology may improve adenoma detection rate (ADR), but it’s also associated with higher detection and removal of non-neoplastic lesions, according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

In particular, AIAC led to a statistically and clinically significant increase in the proportion of exams that detected lesions that after resection were all found to be benign, compared with unassisted colonoscopy.

University of Minnesota

“The potential implications include increased procedural risks, as well as costs, such as pathology costs and other healthcare expenditures, without any additional colorectal cancer prevention benefit,” said lead author Tessa Herman, MD, chief resident of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

In a previous implementation trial at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Herman and colleagues compared ADR between a group of patients undergoing AIAC and a historical cohort of patients who had non–AI-assisted colonoscopy.

In this subsequent study, the research team conducted an ad hoc analysis of data from the previous trial to determine the proportion of colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, and positive fecal immunochemical tests which detect lesions that after resection are all found to be benign. They excluded colonoscopies conducted for diagnostic indications or inflammatory bowel disease, as well as incomplete colonoscopies, and for those with inadequate bowel preparation.

Overall, they studied 441 non-AIAC colonoscopies (between November 2022 and April 2023) and 599 AIAC colonoscopies (between May 2023 and October 2023). The groups were balanced, and there were no significant differences in patient demographics, endoscopists, AI technology, procedure time, or average number of polyps detected.

In the non-AIAC cohort, 37 cases (8.4%) had polypectomies that revealed only benign lesions, as compared with 74 cases (12.4%) in the AIAC cohort. The most common resected lesions were benign colonic mucosa, lymphoid aggregates, and hyperplastic polyps.

Applied to the 15 million colonoscopies conducted in the United States per year, the findings indicate that full adoption of AIAC could result in about 600,000 more colonoscopies in which only benign, nonadenomatous lesions are removed, compared with traditional colonoscopy, Herman said.

More study of AIAC is needed, said Daniel Pambianco, MD, managing partner of GastroHealth-Charlottesville in Virginia and the 2023 ACG president. “This technology is in a fledging stage, and the more data we have, the more helpful it’ll be to know if we’re removing the right lesions at a better rate.”

“There’s a hope that assistance will improve detection, removal of polyps, and ultimately, colon cancer,” added Pambianco, who comoderated the session on colorectal cancer prevention.

Future longitudinal studies should monitor both ADR and benign lesion resection rates with AIAC, and modeling studies could determine the benefits and costs of the technology, Herman said. In addition, development of hybrid CADe and computer-aided diagnosis systems could mitigate concerns about excessive benign lesion resection with AI tools.

Valley Medical Group

Clinicians already are able to find colon mucosa that are polypoid or lymphoid aggregates during colonoscopy without AI assistance, said the session’s comoderator, Sita Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Ridgewood, New Jersey. 

“Instead, we need a tool that can help us to not remove these polyps that are not neoplastic,” she said. “With future developments, we may be able to take it to the next step where the algorithm tells us that it’s benign and not to touch it.”

The study was named an ACG Newsworthy Abstract. Herman, Pambianco, and Chokhavatia reported no relevant disclosures.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

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

PHILADELPHIA — New research challenges the traditional practice of continuing vasoconstrictor therapy for 5 days after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for acute variceal bleeding, finding that a shorter course of 1-3 days may suffice, without raising the risk for rebleeding, if the initial ligation successfully controls bleeding.

“This approach would allow earlier discharge from the hospital and reduce the risk of adverse events, all without sacrificing treatment efficacy or compromising patient safety,” Sushrut Ingawale, MD, MBBS, Quinnipiac University School of Medicine, North Haven, and St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridgeport, both in Connecticut, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).

Ingawale called for a “re-evaluation of existing protocols, emphasizing the potential to update current protocols to reflect shorter, more personalized” duration of vasoconstrictor therapy in these patients.

Rush University Medical Center

Commenting on this research, Nancy Reau, MD, AGAF, of Rush University in Chicago, Illinois, said: “We should always question the standard of care.”

“Vasoconstrictors for 5 days is the standard of care, but this could lead to prolonged hospitalization in patients who are otherwise doing well after endoscopic intervention. Recognizing that a shorter course of vasoconstrictor treatment may have equal outcome is very important though it may not be appropriate for all patients, especially those at high risk for rebleeding,” said Reau.
 

Outdated Guidelines?

In his presentation, Ingawale noted that current guidelines that recommend continuing vasoconstrictors, like octreotide or terlipressin, for at least 3-5 days after EVL for acute variceal bleeding are based primarily on old studies in which sclerotherapy was the primary hemostatic method.

The study team assessed comparative outcomes based on the duration of vasoconstrictors after EVL for acute variceal bleeding in a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials.

The studies had a total of 816 patients who were grouped based on the duration vasoconstrictor therapy: 24 hours or less (group 1), 24-72 hours (group 2), and 72-120 hours (group 3).

There was no significant difference in the risk for rebleeding in group 1 (risk ratio [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 0.48-3.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.42-4.54) vs group 3.

“This finding was even consistent when we compared individual durations” of 0, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours vs 120 hours, Ingawale said.

There was also no statistically significant difference in the 5-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.09-2.52) and group 2 (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.15-6.43) or the 30-day mortality risk between group 1 (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.51-2.51) and group 2 (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.36-2.52) vs group 3.
 

Rapidly Evolving Area

“Our network meta-analysis did not show any benefit of continuing vasoconstrictors after EVL,” the researchers wrote in their conference abstract. Despite historical precedent, shorter durations may be adequate, “potentially enabling earlier hospital discharge without compromising patient outcomes.”

Ingawale suggested future research should look to identify the subset of patients at a risk for failure to control bleeding who might benefit from the continuation of vasoconstrictors.

“Management of complications of portal hypertension are rapidly evolving and this study will add to the data that drives our guidelines. Seeing this data in a peer reviewed publication will add the necessary validity to impact a change in the treatment paradigm,” Reau said.

The study had no specific funding. Ingawale had no relevant financial relationships. Reau disclosed various relationships with AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix.

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

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.

“We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations,” said coinvestigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier in 2024 that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.

Sands reported the new data in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL)–23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
 

GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset

In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.

Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.

Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.

The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.

Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.

The composite co–primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.

The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
 

Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups

In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.

Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200-mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).

Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.

“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.

Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.

“We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations,” said coinvestigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier in 2024 that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.

Sands reported the new data in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL)–23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
 

GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset

In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.

Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.

Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.

The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.

Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.

The composite co–primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.

The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
 

Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups

In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.

Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200-mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).

Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.

“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.

Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.

“We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations,” said coinvestigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier in 2024 that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.

Sands reported the new data in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL)–23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
 

GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset

In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.

Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.

Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.

The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.

Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.

The composite co–primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.

The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
 

Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups

In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.

Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200-mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).

Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.

“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.

Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common conditions encountered by both primary care providers and gastroenterologists, with a pooled global prevalence of 11.2%. This functional bowel disorder is characterized by abdominal pain or discomfort, diarrhea and/or constipation, and bloating.

Unfortunately, IBS is often misunderstood or minimized by some healthcare professionals, according to Alan Desmond, MB, consultant in gastroenterology and general internal medicine, Torbay Hospital, UK National Health Service.

Desmond regularly sees patients who either haven’t been accurately diagnosed or have been told, “Don’t worry, it’s ‘just’ irritable bowel syndrome,” he said at the recent International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine.

A 2017 study involving nearly 2000 patients with a history of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms found that 43.1% of those who met the criteria for IBS were undiagnosed, and among those who were diagnosed, 26% were not receiving treatment.

“Many clinicians vastly underestimate the impact functional GI symptoms have on our patients in lack of productivity, becoming homebound or losing employment, the inability to enjoy a meal with friends or family, and always needing to know where the nearest bathroom is, for example,” Desmond said in an interview.

IBS can profoundly affect patients’ mental health. One study found that 38% of patients with IBS attending a tertiary care clinic contemplated suicide because they felt hopeless about ever achieving symptom relief.

Today, several dietary, pharmacologic, and psychological/behavioral approaches are available to treat patients with IBS, noted William D. Chey, MD, AGAF, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Each individual patient may need a different combination of these foundational treatments,” he said. “One size doesn’t fit all.”
 

Diagnostic Pathway

One reason IBS is so hard to diagnose is that it’s a “symptom-based disorder, with identification of the condition predicated upon certain key characteristics that are heterogeneous,” Chey said in an interview. “IBS in patient ‘A’ may not present the same way as IBS in patient ‘B,’ although there are certain foundational common characteristics.”

IBS involves “abnormalities in the motility and contractility of the GI tract,” he said. It can present with diarrhea (IBS-D), constipation (IBS-C), or a mixture or alternation of diarrhea and constipation (IBS-M).

Patients with IBS-D often have an exaggerated gastro-colonic response, while those with IBS-C often have a blunted response.

Beyond stool abnormalities and abdominal pain/discomfort, patients often report bloating/distension, low backache, lethargy, nausea, thigh pain, and urinary and gynecologic symptoms.

Historically, IBS has been regarded as a “diagnosis of exclusion” because classic diagnostic tests typically yield no concrete findings. Desmond noted that several blood tests, procedures, imaging studies, and other tests are available to rule out other organic GI conditions, as outlined in the Table.

New Understanding of IBS Etiology

Now, advances in the understanding of IBS are changing the approach to the disease.

“The field is moving away from seeing IBS as a ‘wastebasket diagnosis,’ recognizing that there are other causes of a patient’s symptoms,” Mark Pimentel, MD, associate professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “What’s made IBS so difficult to diagnose has been the absence of biological markers and hallmark findings on endoscopy.”

Recent research points to novel bacterial causes as culprits in the development of IBS. In particular, altered small bowel microbiota can be triggered by acute gastroenteritis.

Food poisoning can trigger the onset of IBS — a phenomenon called “postinfectious IBS (PI-IBS),” said Pimentel, who is also executive director of the Medically Associated Science and Technology Program at Cedars-Sinai. PI-IBS almost always takes the form of IBS-D, with up to 60% of patients with IBS-D suffering the long-term sequelae of food poisoning.

The types of bacteria most commonly associated with gastroenteritis are Shigella, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli, Pimentel said. All of them release cytolethal distending toxin B (CdtB), causing the body to produce antibodies to the toxin.

CdtB resembles vinculin, a naturally occurring protein critical for healthy gut function. “Because of this molecular resemblance, the immune system often mistakes one for the other, producing anti-vinculin,” Pimentel explained.

This autoimmune response leads to disruptions in the gut microbiome, ultimately resulting in PI-IBS. The chain of events “doesn’t necessarily happen immediately,” Pimentel said. “You might have developed food poisoning at a party weeks or months ago.”

Acute gastroenteritis is common, affecting as many as 179 million people in the United States annually. A meta-analysis of 47 studies, incorporating 28,270 patients, found that those who had experienced acute gastroenteritis had a fourfold higher risk of developing IBS compared with nonexposed controls.

“The problem isn’t only the IBS itself, but the fact that people with PI-IBS are four times as likely to contract food poisoning again, which can further exacerbate IBS symptoms,” Pimentel said.

Diarrhea-predominant IBS can be detected through the presence of two blood biomarkers — anti-CdtB and anti-vinculin — in a blood test developed by Pimentel and his group.

“Elevation in either of these biomarkers establishes the diagnosis,” Pimentel said. “This is a breakthrough because it represents the first test that can make IBS a ‘diagnosis of inclusion.’”

The blood test also can identify IBS-M but not IBS-C.

Pimentel said that IBS-C is associated with increased levels of methanogenic archaea, which can be diagnosed by a positive methane breath test. “Methane gas slows intestinal contractility, which might result in constipation,” he said.
 

Diet as a Treatment Option

Diet is usually the starting point for IBS treatment, Chey said. “The standard dietary recommendations, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidance for managing IBS, are reasonable and common sense — eating three meals a day, avoiding carbonated beverages, excess alcohol, and excess caffeine, and avoiding hard-to-digest foods that can be gas producing.”

A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs), which are carbohydrates that aren’t completely absorbed in the intestines, has been shown to be effective in alleviating GI distress in as many as 86% of patients with IBS, leading to improvements in overall GI symptoms as well as individual symptoms (eg, abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, diarrhea, and flatulence).

Desmond recommends the low FODMAP program delineated by Monash University in Australia. The diet should be undertaken only under the supervision of a dietitian, he warned. Moreover, following it on a long-term basis can have an adverse impact on dietary quality and the gut microbiome. Therefore, “it’s important to embark on stepwise reintroduction of FODMAPS under supervision to find acceptable thresholds that don’t cause a return of symptoms.”

A growing body of research suggests that following the Mediterranean diet can be helpful in reducing IBS symptoms. Chey said that some patients who tend to over-restrict their eating might benefit from a less restrictive diet than the typical low FODMAPs diet. For them, the Mediterranean diet may be a good option.
 

Pharmacotherapy for IBS

Nutritional approaches aren’t for everyone, Chey noted. “Some people don’t want to be on a highly restricted diet.” For them, medications addressing symptoms might be a better option.

Antispasmodics — either anticholinergics (hyoscine and dicyclomine) or smooth muscle relaxants (alverine, mebeverine, and peppermint oil) — can be helpful, although they can worsen constipation in a dose-dependent manner. It is advisable to use them on an as-needed rather than long-term basis.

Antidiarrheal agents include loperamide and diphenoxylate.

For constipation, laxatives (eg, senna, bisacodyl, polyethylene glycol, and sodium picosulfate) can be helpful.

Desmond noted that the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend routine use of probiotics for most GI disorders, including IBS. Exceptions include prevention of Clostridioides difficile, ulcerative colitis, and pouchitis.
 

Targeting the Gut-Brain Relationship

Stress plays a role in exacerbating symptoms in patients with IBS and is an important target for intervention.

“If patients are living with a level of stress that’s impairing, we won’t be able to solve their gut issues until we resolve their stress issues,” Desmond said. “We need to calm the gut-microbiome-brain axis, which is multidimensional and bidirectional.”

Many people — even those without IBS — experience queasiness or diarrhea prior to a major event they’re nervous about, Chey noted. These events activate the brain, which activates the nervous system, which interacts with the GI tract. Indeed, IBS is now recognized as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, he said.

“We now know that the microbiome in the GI tract influences cognition and emotional function, depression, and anxiety. One might say that the gut is the ‘center of the universe’ to human beings,” Chey said.

Evidence-based psychological approaches for stress reduction in patients with IBS include cognitive behavioral therapy, specifically tailored to helping the patient identify associations between IBS symptoms and thoughts, emotions, and actions, as well as learning new behaviors and engaging in stress management. Psychodynamic (interpersonal) therapy enables patients to understand the connection between GI symptoms and interpersonal conflicts, emotional factors, or relationship difficulties.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH) is a “proven modality for IBS,” Desmond said. Unlike other forms of hypnotherapy, GDH focuses specifically on controlling and normalizing GI function. Studies have shown a reduction of ≥ 30% in abdominal pain in two thirds of participants, with overall response rates up to 85%. It can be delivered in an individual or group setting or via a smartphone.

Desmond recommends mindfulness-based therapy (MBT) for IBS. MBT focuses on the “cultivation of mindfulness, defined as intentional, nonjudgmental, present-focused awareness.” It has been found effective in reducing flares and the markers of gut inflammation in ulcerative colitis, as well as reducing symptoms of IBS.

Chey noted that an emerging body of literature supports the potential role of acupuncture in treating IBS, and his clinic employs it. “I would like to see further research into other areas of CAM [complementary and alternative medicine], including herbal approaches to IBS symptoms as well as stress.”

Finally, all the experts agree that more research is needed.

“The real tragedy is that the NIH invests next to nothing in IBS, in contrast to inflammatory bowel disease and many other conditions,” Pimentel said. “Yet IBS is 45 times more common than inflammatory bowel disease.”

Pimentel hopes that with enough advocacy and recognition that IBS isn’t “just stress-related,” more resources will be devoted to understanding this debilitating condition.

Desmond is the author of a book on the benefits of a plant-based diet. He has also received honoraria, speaking, and consultancy fees from the European Space Agency, Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, Riverford Organic Farmers, Ltd., Salesforce Inc., Sentara Healthcare, Saudi Sports for All Federation, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, The Plantrician Project, Doctors for Nutrition, and The Happy Pear.

Pimentel is a consultant for Bausch Health, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Ardelyx. He holds equity in and is also a consultant for Dieta Health, Salvo Health, Cylinder Health, and Gemelli Biotech. Cedars-Sinai has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech and Hobbs Medical.

Chey is a consultant to AbbVie, Ardelyx, Atmo, Biomerica, Gemelli Biotech, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Nestlé, QOL Medical, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Redhill, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, and Vibrant. He receives grant/research funding from Commonwealth Diagnostics International, Inc., US Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, QOL Medical, and Salix/Valeant. He holds stock options in Coprata, Dieta Health, Evinature, FoodMarble, Kiwi Biosciences, and ModifyHealth. He is a board or advisory panel member of the American College of Gastroenterology, GI Health Foundation, International Foundation for Gastrointestinal Disorders, Rome. He holds patents on My Nutrition Health, Digital Manometry, and Rectal Expulsion Device.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common conditions encountered by both primary care providers and gastroenterologists, with a pooled global prevalence of 11.2%. This functional bowel disorder is characterized by abdominal pain or discomfort, diarrhea and/or constipation, and bloating.

Unfortunately, IBS is often misunderstood or minimized by some healthcare professionals, according to Alan Desmond, MB, consultant in gastroenterology and general internal medicine, Torbay Hospital, UK National Health Service.

Desmond regularly sees patients who either haven’t been accurately diagnosed or have been told, “Don’t worry, it’s ‘just’ irritable bowel syndrome,” he said at the recent International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine.

A 2017 study involving nearly 2000 patients with a history of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms found that 43.1% of those who met the criteria for IBS were undiagnosed, and among those who were diagnosed, 26% were not receiving treatment.

“Many clinicians vastly underestimate the impact functional GI symptoms have on our patients in lack of productivity, becoming homebound or losing employment, the inability to enjoy a meal with friends or family, and always needing to know where the nearest bathroom is, for example,” Desmond said in an interview.

IBS can profoundly affect patients’ mental health. One study found that 38% of patients with IBS attending a tertiary care clinic contemplated suicide because they felt hopeless about ever achieving symptom relief.

Today, several dietary, pharmacologic, and psychological/behavioral approaches are available to treat patients with IBS, noted William D. Chey, MD, AGAF, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Each individual patient may need a different combination of these foundational treatments,” he said. “One size doesn’t fit all.”
 

Diagnostic Pathway

One reason IBS is so hard to diagnose is that it’s a “symptom-based disorder, with identification of the condition predicated upon certain key characteristics that are heterogeneous,” Chey said in an interview. “IBS in patient ‘A’ may not present the same way as IBS in patient ‘B,’ although there are certain foundational common characteristics.”

IBS involves “abnormalities in the motility and contractility of the GI tract,” he said. It can present with diarrhea (IBS-D), constipation (IBS-C), or a mixture or alternation of diarrhea and constipation (IBS-M).

Patients with IBS-D often have an exaggerated gastro-colonic response, while those with IBS-C often have a blunted response.

Beyond stool abnormalities and abdominal pain/discomfort, patients often report bloating/distension, low backache, lethargy, nausea, thigh pain, and urinary and gynecologic symptoms.

Historically, IBS has been regarded as a “diagnosis of exclusion” because classic diagnostic tests typically yield no concrete findings. Desmond noted that several blood tests, procedures, imaging studies, and other tests are available to rule out other organic GI conditions, as outlined in the Table.

New Understanding of IBS Etiology

Now, advances in the understanding of IBS are changing the approach to the disease.

“The field is moving away from seeing IBS as a ‘wastebasket diagnosis,’ recognizing that there are other causes of a patient’s symptoms,” Mark Pimentel, MD, associate professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “What’s made IBS so difficult to diagnose has been the absence of biological markers and hallmark findings on endoscopy.”

Recent research points to novel bacterial causes as culprits in the development of IBS. In particular, altered small bowel microbiota can be triggered by acute gastroenteritis.

Food poisoning can trigger the onset of IBS — a phenomenon called “postinfectious IBS (PI-IBS),” said Pimentel, who is also executive director of the Medically Associated Science and Technology Program at Cedars-Sinai. PI-IBS almost always takes the form of IBS-D, with up to 60% of patients with IBS-D suffering the long-term sequelae of food poisoning.

The types of bacteria most commonly associated with gastroenteritis are Shigella, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli, Pimentel said. All of them release cytolethal distending toxin B (CdtB), causing the body to produce antibodies to the toxin.

CdtB resembles vinculin, a naturally occurring protein critical for healthy gut function. “Because of this molecular resemblance, the immune system often mistakes one for the other, producing anti-vinculin,” Pimentel explained.

This autoimmune response leads to disruptions in the gut microbiome, ultimately resulting in PI-IBS. The chain of events “doesn’t necessarily happen immediately,” Pimentel said. “You might have developed food poisoning at a party weeks or months ago.”

Acute gastroenteritis is common, affecting as many as 179 million people in the United States annually. A meta-analysis of 47 studies, incorporating 28,270 patients, found that those who had experienced acute gastroenteritis had a fourfold higher risk of developing IBS compared with nonexposed controls.

“The problem isn’t only the IBS itself, but the fact that people with PI-IBS are four times as likely to contract food poisoning again, which can further exacerbate IBS symptoms,” Pimentel said.

Diarrhea-predominant IBS can be detected through the presence of two blood biomarkers — anti-CdtB and anti-vinculin — in a blood test developed by Pimentel and his group.

“Elevation in either of these biomarkers establishes the diagnosis,” Pimentel said. “This is a breakthrough because it represents the first test that can make IBS a ‘diagnosis of inclusion.’”

The blood test also can identify IBS-M but not IBS-C.

Pimentel said that IBS-C is associated with increased levels of methanogenic archaea, which can be diagnosed by a positive methane breath test. “Methane gas slows intestinal contractility, which might result in constipation,” he said.
 

Diet as a Treatment Option

Diet is usually the starting point for IBS treatment, Chey said. “The standard dietary recommendations, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidance for managing IBS, are reasonable and common sense — eating three meals a day, avoiding carbonated beverages, excess alcohol, and excess caffeine, and avoiding hard-to-digest foods that can be gas producing.”

A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs), which are carbohydrates that aren’t completely absorbed in the intestines, has been shown to be effective in alleviating GI distress in as many as 86% of patients with IBS, leading to improvements in overall GI symptoms as well as individual symptoms (eg, abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, diarrhea, and flatulence).

Desmond recommends the low FODMAP program delineated by Monash University in Australia. The diet should be undertaken only under the supervision of a dietitian, he warned. Moreover, following it on a long-term basis can have an adverse impact on dietary quality and the gut microbiome. Therefore, “it’s important to embark on stepwise reintroduction of FODMAPS under supervision to find acceptable thresholds that don’t cause a return of symptoms.”

A growing body of research suggests that following the Mediterranean diet can be helpful in reducing IBS symptoms. Chey said that some patients who tend to over-restrict their eating might benefit from a less restrictive diet than the typical low FODMAPs diet. For them, the Mediterranean diet may be a good option.
 

Pharmacotherapy for IBS

Nutritional approaches aren’t for everyone, Chey noted. “Some people don’t want to be on a highly restricted diet.” For them, medications addressing symptoms might be a better option.

Antispasmodics — either anticholinergics (hyoscine and dicyclomine) or smooth muscle relaxants (alverine, mebeverine, and peppermint oil) — can be helpful, although they can worsen constipation in a dose-dependent manner. It is advisable to use them on an as-needed rather than long-term basis.

Antidiarrheal agents include loperamide and diphenoxylate.

For constipation, laxatives (eg, senna, bisacodyl, polyethylene glycol, and sodium picosulfate) can be helpful.

Desmond noted that the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend routine use of probiotics for most GI disorders, including IBS. Exceptions include prevention of Clostridioides difficile, ulcerative colitis, and pouchitis.
 

Targeting the Gut-Brain Relationship

Stress plays a role in exacerbating symptoms in patients with IBS and is an important target for intervention.

“If patients are living with a level of stress that’s impairing, we won’t be able to solve their gut issues until we resolve their stress issues,” Desmond said. “We need to calm the gut-microbiome-brain axis, which is multidimensional and bidirectional.”

Many people — even those without IBS — experience queasiness or diarrhea prior to a major event they’re nervous about, Chey noted. These events activate the brain, which activates the nervous system, which interacts with the GI tract. Indeed, IBS is now recognized as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, he said.

“We now know that the microbiome in the GI tract influences cognition and emotional function, depression, and anxiety. One might say that the gut is the ‘center of the universe’ to human beings,” Chey said.

Evidence-based psychological approaches for stress reduction in patients with IBS include cognitive behavioral therapy, specifically tailored to helping the patient identify associations between IBS symptoms and thoughts, emotions, and actions, as well as learning new behaviors and engaging in stress management. Psychodynamic (interpersonal) therapy enables patients to understand the connection between GI symptoms and interpersonal conflicts, emotional factors, or relationship difficulties.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH) is a “proven modality for IBS,” Desmond said. Unlike other forms of hypnotherapy, GDH focuses specifically on controlling and normalizing GI function. Studies have shown a reduction of ≥ 30% in abdominal pain in two thirds of participants, with overall response rates up to 85%. It can be delivered in an individual or group setting or via a smartphone.

Desmond recommends mindfulness-based therapy (MBT) for IBS. MBT focuses on the “cultivation of mindfulness, defined as intentional, nonjudgmental, present-focused awareness.” It has been found effective in reducing flares and the markers of gut inflammation in ulcerative colitis, as well as reducing symptoms of IBS.

Chey noted that an emerging body of literature supports the potential role of acupuncture in treating IBS, and his clinic employs it. “I would like to see further research into other areas of CAM [complementary and alternative medicine], including herbal approaches to IBS symptoms as well as stress.”

Finally, all the experts agree that more research is needed.

“The real tragedy is that the NIH invests next to nothing in IBS, in contrast to inflammatory bowel disease and many other conditions,” Pimentel said. “Yet IBS is 45 times more common than inflammatory bowel disease.”

Pimentel hopes that with enough advocacy and recognition that IBS isn’t “just stress-related,” more resources will be devoted to understanding this debilitating condition.

Desmond is the author of a book on the benefits of a plant-based diet. He has also received honoraria, speaking, and consultancy fees from the European Space Agency, Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, Riverford Organic Farmers, Ltd., Salesforce Inc., Sentara Healthcare, Saudi Sports for All Federation, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, The Plantrician Project, Doctors for Nutrition, and The Happy Pear.

Pimentel is a consultant for Bausch Health, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Ardelyx. He holds equity in and is also a consultant for Dieta Health, Salvo Health, Cylinder Health, and Gemelli Biotech. Cedars-Sinai has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech and Hobbs Medical.

Chey is a consultant to AbbVie, Ardelyx, Atmo, Biomerica, Gemelli Biotech, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Nestlé, QOL Medical, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Redhill, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, and Vibrant. He receives grant/research funding from Commonwealth Diagnostics International, Inc., US Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, QOL Medical, and Salix/Valeant. He holds stock options in Coprata, Dieta Health, Evinature, FoodMarble, Kiwi Biosciences, and ModifyHealth. He is a board or advisory panel member of the American College of Gastroenterology, GI Health Foundation, International Foundation for Gastrointestinal Disorders, Rome. He holds patents on My Nutrition Health, Digital Manometry, and Rectal Expulsion Device.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common conditions encountered by both primary care providers and gastroenterologists, with a pooled global prevalence of 11.2%. This functional bowel disorder is characterized by abdominal pain or discomfort, diarrhea and/or constipation, and bloating.

Unfortunately, IBS is often misunderstood or minimized by some healthcare professionals, according to Alan Desmond, MB, consultant in gastroenterology and general internal medicine, Torbay Hospital, UK National Health Service.

Desmond regularly sees patients who either haven’t been accurately diagnosed or have been told, “Don’t worry, it’s ‘just’ irritable bowel syndrome,” he said at the recent International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine.

A 2017 study involving nearly 2000 patients with a history of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms found that 43.1% of those who met the criteria for IBS were undiagnosed, and among those who were diagnosed, 26% were not receiving treatment.

“Many clinicians vastly underestimate the impact functional GI symptoms have on our patients in lack of productivity, becoming homebound or losing employment, the inability to enjoy a meal with friends or family, and always needing to know where the nearest bathroom is, for example,” Desmond said in an interview.

IBS can profoundly affect patients’ mental health. One study found that 38% of patients with IBS attending a tertiary care clinic contemplated suicide because they felt hopeless about ever achieving symptom relief.

Today, several dietary, pharmacologic, and psychological/behavioral approaches are available to treat patients with IBS, noted William D. Chey, MD, AGAF, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“Each individual patient may need a different combination of these foundational treatments,” he said. “One size doesn’t fit all.”
 

Diagnostic Pathway

One reason IBS is so hard to diagnose is that it’s a “symptom-based disorder, with identification of the condition predicated upon certain key characteristics that are heterogeneous,” Chey said in an interview. “IBS in patient ‘A’ may not present the same way as IBS in patient ‘B,’ although there are certain foundational common characteristics.”

IBS involves “abnormalities in the motility and contractility of the GI tract,” he said. It can present with diarrhea (IBS-D), constipation (IBS-C), or a mixture or alternation of diarrhea and constipation (IBS-M).

Patients with IBS-D often have an exaggerated gastro-colonic response, while those with IBS-C often have a blunted response.

Beyond stool abnormalities and abdominal pain/discomfort, patients often report bloating/distension, low backache, lethargy, nausea, thigh pain, and urinary and gynecologic symptoms.

Historically, IBS has been regarded as a “diagnosis of exclusion” because classic diagnostic tests typically yield no concrete findings. Desmond noted that several blood tests, procedures, imaging studies, and other tests are available to rule out other organic GI conditions, as outlined in the Table.

New Understanding of IBS Etiology

Now, advances in the understanding of IBS are changing the approach to the disease.

“The field is moving away from seeing IBS as a ‘wastebasket diagnosis,’ recognizing that there are other causes of a patient’s symptoms,” Mark Pimentel, MD, associate professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “What’s made IBS so difficult to diagnose has been the absence of biological markers and hallmark findings on endoscopy.”

Recent research points to novel bacterial causes as culprits in the development of IBS. In particular, altered small bowel microbiota can be triggered by acute gastroenteritis.

Food poisoning can trigger the onset of IBS — a phenomenon called “postinfectious IBS (PI-IBS),” said Pimentel, who is also executive director of the Medically Associated Science and Technology Program at Cedars-Sinai. PI-IBS almost always takes the form of IBS-D, with up to 60% of patients with IBS-D suffering the long-term sequelae of food poisoning.

The types of bacteria most commonly associated with gastroenteritis are Shigella, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli, Pimentel said. All of them release cytolethal distending toxin B (CdtB), causing the body to produce antibodies to the toxin.

CdtB resembles vinculin, a naturally occurring protein critical for healthy gut function. “Because of this molecular resemblance, the immune system often mistakes one for the other, producing anti-vinculin,” Pimentel explained.

This autoimmune response leads to disruptions in the gut microbiome, ultimately resulting in PI-IBS. The chain of events “doesn’t necessarily happen immediately,” Pimentel said. “You might have developed food poisoning at a party weeks or months ago.”

Acute gastroenteritis is common, affecting as many as 179 million people in the United States annually. A meta-analysis of 47 studies, incorporating 28,270 patients, found that those who had experienced acute gastroenteritis had a fourfold higher risk of developing IBS compared with nonexposed controls.

“The problem isn’t only the IBS itself, but the fact that people with PI-IBS are four times as likely to contract food poisoning again, which can further exacerbate IBS symptoms,” Pimentel said.

Diarrhea-predominant IBS can be detected through the presence of two blood biomarkers — anti-CdtB and anti-vinculin — in a blood test developed by Pimentel and his group.

“Elevation in either of these biomarkers establishes the diagnosis,” Pimentel said. “This is a breakthrough because it represents the first test that can make IBS a ‘diagnosis of inclusion.’”

The blood test also can identify IBS-M but not IBS-C.

Pimentel said that IBS-C is associated with increased levels of methanogenic archaea, which can be diagnosed by a positive methane breath test. “Methane gas slows intestinal contractility, which might result in constipation,” he said.
 

Diet as a Treatment Option

Diet is usually the starting point for IBS treatment, Chey said. “The standard dietary recommendations, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guidance for managing IBS, are reasonable and common sense — eating three meals a day, avoiding carbonated beverages, excess alcohol, and excess caffeine, and avoiding hard-to-digest foods that can be gas producing.”

A diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs), which are carbohydrates that aren’t completely absorbed in the intestines, has been shown to be effective in alleviating GI distress in as many as 86% of patients with IBS, leading to improvements in overall GI symptoms as well as individual symptoms (eg, abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, diarrhea, and flatulence).

Desmond recommends the low FODMAP program delineated by Monash University in Australia. The diet should be undertaken only under the supervision of a dietitian, he warned. Moreover, following it on a long-term basis can have an adverse impact on dietary quality and the gut microbiome. Therefore, “it’s important to embark on stepwise reintroduction of FODMAPS under supervision to find acceptable thresholds that don’t cause a return of symptoms.”

A growing body of research suggests that following the Mediterranean diet can be helpful in reducing IBS symptoms. Chey said that some patients who tend to over-restrict their eating might benefit from a less restrictive diet than the typical low FODMAPs diet. For them, the Mediterranean diet may be a good option.
 

Pharmacotherapy for IBS

Nutritional approaches aren’t for everyone, Chey noted. “Some people don’t want to be on a highly restricted diet.” For them, medications addressing symptoms might be a better option.

Antispasmodics — either anticholinergics (hyoscine and dicyclomine) or smooth muscle relaxants (alverine, mebeverine, and peppermint oil) — can be helpful, although they can worsen constipation in a dose-dependent manner. It is advisable to use them on an as-needed rather than long-term basis.

Antidiarrheal agents include loperamide and diphenoxylate.

For constipation, laxatives (eg, senna, bisacodyl, polyethylene glycol, and sodium picosulfate) can be helpful.

Desmond noted that the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend routine use of probiotics for most GI disorders, including IBS. Exceptions include prevention of Clostridioides difficile, ulcerative colitis, and pouchitis.
 

Targeting the Gut-Brain Relationship

Stress plays a role in exacerbating symptoms in patients with IBS and is an important target for intervention.

“If patients are living with a level of stress that’s impairing, we won’t be able to solve their gut issues until we resolve their stress issues,” Desmond said. “We need to calm the gut-microbiome-brain axis, which is multidimensional and bidirectional.”

Many people — even those without IBS — experience queasiness or diarrhea prior to a major event they’re nervous about, Chey noted. These events activate the brain, which activates the nervous system, which interacts with the GI tract. Indeed, IBS is now recognized as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, he said.

“We now know that the microbiome in the GI tract influences cognition and emotional function, depression, and anxiety. One might say that the gut is the ‘center of the universe’ to human beings,” Chey said.

Evidence-based psychological approaches for stress reduction in patients with IBS include cognitive behavioral therapy, specifically tailored to helping the patient identify associations between IBS symptoms and thoughts, emotions, and actions, as well as learning new behaviors and engaging in stress management. Psychodynamic (interpersonal) therapy enables patients to understand the connection between GI symptoms and interpersonal conflicts, emotional factors, or relationship difficulties.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy (GDH) is a “proven modality for IBS,” Desmond said. Unlike other forms of hypnotherapy, GDH focuses specifically on controlling and normalizing GI function. Studies have shown a reduction of ≥ 30% in abdominal pain in two thirds of participants, with overall response rates up to 85%. It can be delivered in an individual or group setting or via a smartphone.

Desmond recommends mindfulness-based therapy (MBT) for IBS. MBT focuses on the “cultivation of mindfulness, defined as intentional, nonjudgmental, present-focused awareness.” It has been found effective in reducing flares and the markers of gut inflammation in ulcerative colitis, as well as reducing symptoms of IBS.

Chey noted that an emerging body of literature supports the potential role of acupuncture in treating IBS, and his clinic employs it. “I would like to see further research into other areas of CAM [complementary and alternative medicine], including herbal approaches to IBS symptoms as well as stress.”

Finally, all the experts agree that more research is needed.

“The real tragedy is that the NIH invests next to nothing in IBS, in contrast to inflammatory bowel disease and many other conditions,” Pimentel said. “Yet IBS is 45 times more common than inflammatory bowel disease.”

Pimentel hopes that with enough advocacy and recognition that IBS isn’t “just stress-related,” more resources will be devoted to understanding this debilitating condition.

Desmond is the author of a book on the benefits of a plant-based diet. He has also received honoraria, speaking, and consultancy fees from the European Space Agency, Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, Riverford Organic Farmers, Ltd., Salesforce Inc., Sentara Healthcare, Saudi Sports for All Federation, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, The Plantrician Project, Doctors for Nutrition, and The Happy Pear.

Pimentel is a consultant for Bausch Health, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Ardelyx. He holds equity in and is also a consultant for Dieta Health, Salvo Health, Cylinder Health, and Gemelli Biotech. Cedars-Sinai has a licensing agreement with Gemelli Biotech and Hobbs Medical.

Chey is a consultant to AbbVie, Ardelyx, Atmo, Biomerica, Gemelli Biotech, Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Nestlé, QOL Medical, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Redhill, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, and Vibrant. He receives grant/research funding from Commonwealth Diagnostics International, Inc., US Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, QOL Medical, and Salix/Valeant. He holds stock options in Coprata, Dieta Health, Evinature, FoodMarble, Kiwi Biosciences, and ModifyHealth. He is a board or advisory panel member of the American College of Gastroenterology, GI Health Foundation, International Foundation for Gastrointestinal Disorders, Rome. He holds patents on My Nutrition Health, Digital Manometry, and Rectal Expulsion Device.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS — An upcoming document will entirely reframe obesity as a “condition of excess adiposity” that constitutes a disease called “clinical obesity” when related tissue and organ abnormalities are present.

The authors of the new framework are a Lancet Commission of 56 of the world’s leading obesity experts, including academic clinicians, scientists, public health experts, patient representatives, and officers from the World Health Organization. Following peer review, it will be launched via livestream and published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology in mid-January 2025, with formal endorsement from more than 75 medical societies and other relevant stakeholder organizations.

On November 4, 2024, at the Obesity Society’s Obesity Week meeting, the publication’s lead author, Francesco Rubino, MD, Chair of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at King’s College London in England, gave a preview. He began by noting that, despite the declaration of obesity as a chronic disease over a decade ago, the concept is still debated and not widely accepted by the public or even by all in the medical community.

“The idea of obesity as a disease remains highly controversial,” Rubino noted, adding that the current body mass index (BMI)–based definition contributes to this because it doesn’t distinguish between people whose excess adiposity place them at excess risk for disease but they’re currently healthy vs those who already have undergone bodily harm from that adiposity.

“Having a framework that distinguishes at an individual level when you are in a condition of risk and when you have a condition of disease is fundamentally important. You don’t want to blur the picture in either direction, because obviously the consequence would be quite significant. ... So, the commission focused exactly on that point,” he said.

The new paper will propose a two-part clinical approach: First, assess whether the patient has excess adiposity, with methods that will be outlined. Next, assess on an organ-by-organ basis for the presence of abnormalities related to excess adiposity, or “clinical obesity.” The document will also provide those specific criteria, Rubino said, noting that those details are under embargo until January.

However, he did say that “We are going to propose a pragmatic approach to say that BMI alone is not enough in the clinic. It’s okay as a screening tool, but when somebody potentially has obesity, then you have to add additional measures of adiposity that makes sure you decrease the level of risk… Once you have obesity, then you need to establish if it’s clinical or nonclinical.”

Asked to comment, session moderator John D. Clark, MD, PhD, Chief Population Health Officer at Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, San Diego, California, said in an interview, “I think it’ll help explain and move medicine as a whole in a direction to a greater understanding of obesity actually being a disease, how to define it, and how to identify it. And will, I think, lead to a greater understanding of the underlying disease.”

And, Clark said, it should also help target individuals with preventive vs therapeutic approaches. “I would describe it as matching the right tool to the right patient. If a person has clinical obesity, they likely can and would benefit from either different or additional tools, as opposed to otherwise healthy obesity.”

Rubino said he hopes the new framework will prompt improvements in reimbursement and public policy. “Policymakers scratch their heads when they have limited resources and you need to prioritize things. Having an obesity definition that is blurry doesn’t allow you to have a fair, human, and meaningful prioritization. ... Now that we have drugs that cannot be given to 100% of people, how do you decide who gets them first? I hope this will make it easier for people to access treatment. At the moment, it is not only difficult, but it’s also unfair. It’s random. Somebody gets access, while somebody else who is very, very sick has no access. I don’t think that’s what we want.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An expert panel has published noninvasive test (NIT) cutoffs to identify patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis who may benefit from resmetirom therapy.

This guidance document allows clinicians to use a variety of NITs to start and monitor resmetirom therapy, precluding the need for a biopsy, lead author Mazen Noureddin, MD, of Houston Research Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, and colleagues reported.

Houston Methodist Hospital

“The recent conditional approval by the [Food and Drug Administration] of resmetirom ... presents a much-anticipated therapeutic option for patients with noncirrhotic advanced MASH,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

However, the approval also “presents important challenges,” they noted, “including how to noninvasively identify patients with fibrosis stages 2-3, and how to exclude patients with more advanced disease who should not be treated until further data emerge on the use of resmetirom in this population.”

To help identify which patients should get this new intervention, Noureddin and colleagues considered benchmarks from published literature, and conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 3 MASTERO-NASH trial data. Trial enrollment required at least three cardiometabolic risk factors and a vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) prescreening within the past 3 months. The population included 888 patients with F2 or F3 disease.

Recommendations were split into three categories: treat with resmetirom, consider treating with resmetirom, and do not treat with resmetirom.

The recommendation to treat calls for a VCTE of 10-15 kPa, a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of 3.3-4.2 kPa, or an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score of 9.2-10.4, with the caveat that an ELF score below 9.8 requires a second NIT for confirmation. Alternatively, a positive composite score such as FibroScan–aspartate aminotransferase (FAST), MRI–AST (MAST), or MRE + Fibrosis-4 (MEFIB) may serve as grounds for treatment. For any of the previous, platelets must concurrently be at least 140 with no evidence of portal hypertension.

The recommendation to consider treatment depends upon a VCTE of 15.1-19.9 kPa, an MRE of 4.3-4.9 kPa, an ELF score of 10.5-11.3, or positive FAST, MAST, or MEFIB. Again, these require a concurrent platelet count of 140 and no portal hypertension.

Finally, patients should not be treated with resmetirom if they have a VCTE of 20 kPa or greater, an MRE of 5 kPa or greater, and an ELF score greater than 11.3.

Noureddin and colleagues also offered guidance on monitoring strategies, including follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months.

At 3 months, the focus should be safety, including screening for drug-related liver injury and other adverse events that warrant cessation.

At 6 months, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, VCTE, or MRI–proton density fat fraction (PDFF) tests can indicate early response, but treatment should generally continue regardless of results.

At 12 months, efficacy can be fully evaluated. ALT normalization, or improvement of more than 17 IU/L or more than 20%, along with a 30% or greater drop in VCTE, or at least 30% drop in liver fat on MRI-PDFF, serve as grounds for continuation.

Noureddin and colleagues noted that ALT improvement should be paired with corresponding improvements in imaging, such as a 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF. Even if ALT levels do not improve, a 30% or greater reduction in MRI-PDFF can still indicate a positive response; however, VCTE alone may not be sufficient to fully assess treatment response.

“Emerging data, particularly regarding the noninvasive assessment of treatment response, are likely to further modify patient selection, safety signals, and efficacy algorithms,” they concluded.This study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the John C. Martin Foundation, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shire, and others.

An expert panel has published noninvasive test (NIT) cutoffs to identify patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis who may benefit from resmetirom therapy.

This guidance document allows clinicians to use a variety of NITs to start and monitor resmetirom therapy, precluding the need for a biopsy, lead author Mazen Noureddin, MD, of Houston Research Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, and colleagues reported.

Houston Methodist Hospital

“The recent conditional approval by the [Food and Drug Administration] of resmetirom ... presents a much-anticipated therapeutic option for patients with noncirrhotic advanced MASH,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

However, the approval also “presents important challenges,” they noted, “including how to noninvasively identify patients with fibrosis stages 2-3, and how to exclude patients with more advanced disease who should not be treated until further data emerge on the use of resmetirom in this population.”

To help identify which patients should get this new intervention, Noureddin and colleagues considered benchmarks from published literature, and conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 3 MASTERO-NASH trial data. Trial enrollment required at least three cardiometabolic risk factors and a vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) prescreening within the past 3 months. The population included 888 patients with F2 or F3 disease.

Recommendations were split into three categories: treat with resmetirom, consider treating with resmetirom, and do not treat with resmetirom.

The recommendation to treat calls for a VCTE of 10-15 kPa, a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of 3.3-4.2 kPa, or an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score of 9.2-10.4, with the caveat that an ELF score below 9.8 requires a second NIT for confirmation. Alternatively, a positive composite score such as FibroScan–aspartate aminotransferase (FAST), MRI–AST (MAST), or MRE + Fibrosis-4 (MEFIB) may serve as grounds for treatment. For any of the previous, platelets must concurrently be at least 140 with no evidence of portal hypertension.

The recommendation to consider treatment depends upon a VCTE of 15.1-19.9 kPa, an MRE of 4.3-4.9 kPa, an ELF score of 10.5-11.3, or positive FAST, MAST, or MEFIB. Again, these require a concurrent platelet count of 140 and no portal hypertension.

Finally, patients should not be treated with resmetirom if they have a VCTE of 20 kPa or greater, an MRE of 5 kPa or greater, and an ELF score greater than 11.3.

Noureddin and colleagues also offered guidance on monitoring strategies, including follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months.

At 3 months, the focus should be safety, including screening for drug-related liver injury and other adverse events that warrant cessation.

At 6 months, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, VCTE, or MRI–proton density fat fraction (PDFF) tests can indicate early response, but treatment should generally continue regardless of results.

At 12 months, efficacy can be fully evaluated. ALT normalization, or improvement of more than 17 IU/L or more than 20%, along with a 30% or greater drop in VCTE, or at least 30% drop in liver fat on MRI-PDFF, serve as grounds for continuation.

Noureddin and colleagues noted that ALT improvement should be paired with corresponding improvements in imaging, such as a 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF. Even if ALT levels do not improve, a 30% or greater reduction in MRI-PDFF can still indicate a positive response; however, VCTE alone may not be sufficient to fully assess treatment response.

“Emerging data, particularly regarding the noninvasive assessment of treatment response, are likely to further modify patient selection, safety signals, and efficacy algorithms,” they concluded.This study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the John C. Martin Foundation, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shire, and others.

An expert panel has published noninvasive test (NIT) cutoffs to identify patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with stage 2 or 3 fibrosis who may benefit from resmetirom therapy.

This guidance document allows clinicians to use a variety of NITs to start and monitor resmetirom therapy, precluding the need for a biopsy, lead author Mazen Noureddin, MD, of Houston Research Institute, Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, and colleagues reported.

Houston Methodist Hospital

“The recent conditional approval by the [Food and Drug Administration] of resmetirom ... presents a much-anticipated therapeutic option for patients with noncirrhotic advanced MASH,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

However, the approval also “presents important challenges,” they noted, “including how to noninvasively identify patients with fibrosis stages 2-3, and how to exclude patients with more advanced disease who should not be treated until further data emerge on the use of resmetirom in this population.”

To help identify which patients should get this new intervention, Noureddin and colleagues considered benchmarks from published literature, and conducted a post hoc analysis of phase 3 MASTERO-NASH trial data. Trial enrollment required at least three cardiometabolic risk factors and a vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE) prescreening within the past 3 months. The population included 888 patients with F2 or F3 disease.

Recommendations were split into three categories: treat with resmetirom, consider treating with resmetirom, and do not treat with resmetirom.

The recommendation to treat calls for a VCTE of 10-15 kPa, a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) of 3.3-4.2 kPa, or an Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) score of 9.2-10.4, with the caveat that an ELF score below 9.8 requires a second NIT for confirmation. Alternatively, a positive composite score such as FibroScan–aspartate aminotransferase (FAST), MRI–AST (MAST), or MRE + Fibrosis-4 (MEFIB) may serve as grounds for treatment. For any of the previous, platelets must concurrently be at least 140 with no evidence of portal hypertension.

The recommendation to consider treatment depends upon a VCTE of 15.1-19.9 kPa, an MRE of 4.3-4.9 kPa, an ELF score of 10.5-11.3, or positive FAST, MAST, or MEFIB. Again, these require a concurrent platelet count of 140 and no portal hypertension.

Finally, patients should not be treated with resmetirom if they have a VCTE of 20 kPa or greater, an MRE of 5 kPa or greater, and an ELF score greater than 11.3.

Noureddin and colleagues also offered guidance on monitoring strategies, including follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months.

At 3 months, the focus should be safety, including screening for drug-related liver injury and other adverse events that warrant cessation.

At 6 months, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, VCTE, or MRI–proton density fat fraction (PDFF) tests can indicate early response, but treatment should generally continue regardless of results.

At 12 months, efficacy can be fully evaluated. ALT normalization, or improvement of more than 17 IU/L or more than 20%, along with a 30% or greater drop in VCTE, or at least 30% drop in liver fat on MRI-PDFF, serve as grounds for continuation.

Noureddin and colleagues noted that ALT improvement should be paired with corresponding improvements in imaging, such as a 30% reduction in MRI-PDFF. Even if ALT levels do not improve, a 30% or greater reduction in MRI-PDFF can still indicate a positive response; however, VCTE alone may not be sufficient to fully assess treatment response.

“Emerging data, particularly regarding the noninvasive assessment of treatment response, are likely to further modify patient selection, safety signals, and efficacy algorithms,” they concluded.This study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the John C. Martin Foundation, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Shire, and others.

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) has become the most common liver disease worldwide, with a global prevalence of 32.4%. Its growth over the past three decades has occurred in tandem with increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes — two cornerstones of MASLD.

Higher rates of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) with fibrosis are present in adults with obesity and diabetes, noted Arun Sanyal, MD, professor and director of the Stravitz-Sanyal Institute for Liver Disease and Metabolic Health, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.

The success surrounding the medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), has sparked studies investigating whether they could also be an effective treatment for liver disease.

In particular, GLP-1 RAs help patients lose weight and/or control diabetes by mimicking the function of the gut hormone GLP-1, released in response to nutrient intake, and are able to increase insulin secretion and reduce glucagon secretion, delay gastric emptying, and reduce appetite and caloric intake.

The studies for MASLD are testing whether these functions will also work against liver disease, either directly or indirectly, through obesity and diabetes control. The early results are promising.
 

More Than One Risk Factor in Play

MASLD is defined by the presence of hepatic steatosis and at least one of five cardiometabolic risk factors: Overweight/obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia with either low-plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or high triglycerides, or treatment for these conditions.

It is a grim trajectory if the disease progresses to MASH, as the patient may accumulate hepatic fibrosis and go on to develop cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma.

Typically, more than one risk factor is at play in MASLD, noted Adnan Said, MD, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin.

“It most commonly occurs in the setting of weight gain and obesity, which are epidemics in the United States and worldwide, as well as the associated condition — metabolic syndrome — which goes along with obesity and includes type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and sleep apnea,” Said, a hepatology and gastroenterology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, told this news organization.

The research surrounding MASLD is investigating GLP-1 RAs as single agents and in combination with other drugs.

Finding treatment is critical, as there is only one drug — resmetirom — approved for the treatment of MASH with moderate to advanced fibrosis. But because it’s not approved for earlier stages, a treatment gap exists. The drug also doesn’t produce weight loss, which is key to treating MASLD. And while GLP-1 RAs help patients with the weight loss that is critical to MASLD, they are only approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for obesity and type 2 diabetes.
 

Single Agents

The GLP-1 RAs liraglutide and semaglutide, both approved for diabetes and weight loss, are being studied as single agents against liver disease, Said said.

“Their action in the setting of MASLD and MASH is primarily indirect, through systemic pathways, improving these conditions via weight loss, as well as by improving insulin sensitivity and reducing lipotoxicity,” he added.

One of the first trials of these agents for liver disease was in 2016. In that double-blind, randomized, 48-week clinical trial of liraglutide in patients with MASH and overweight, 39% of patients who received liraglutide had a resolution of MASH compared with only 9% of those who received placebo. Moreover, only 9% vs 36% of patients in the treatment vs placebo group had progression of fibrosis.

Since then, a 72-week phase 2 trial in patients with MASH, liver fibrosis (stages F1-F3), and overweight or obesity found that once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide (0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg) outperformed placebo on MASH resolution without worsening of fibrosis (36%-59% vs 17%) and on weight loss (5%-13% vs 1%), with the greatest benefits at the largest dose. However, neoplasms were reported in 15% of patients receiving semaglutide vs 8% of those receiving placebo.

A phase 1 trial involving patients with liver stiffness, steatosis, and overweight or obesity found significantly greater reductions in liver fat at 48 weeks with semaglutide vs placebo, as well as decreases in liver enzymes, body weight, and A1c. There was no significant difference in liver stiffness.

Furthermore, a meta-analysis of eight studies found that treatment with 24 weeks of semaglutide significantly improved liver enzymes, reduced liver stiffness, and improved metabolic parameters in patients with MASLD/MASH. The authors cautioned that gastrointestinal adverse effects “could be a major concern.”

Several studies have found other GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide and dulaglutide, have a beneficial impact on liver injury indices and liver steatosis.

A new retrospective observational study offers evidence that GLP-1 RAs may have a direct impact on MASLD, independent of weight loss. Among the 28% of patients with type 2 diabetes and MASLD who received a GLP-1 RA, there was a significant reduction not only in body mass index but also in A1c, liver enzymes, and controlled attenuation parameter scores. A beneficial impact on liver parameters was observed even in patients who didn’t lose weight. While there was no difference in liver stiffness measurement, the median 60-month follow-up time may not have been long enough to capture such changes.

Another study indicated that the apparent benefits of GLP-1 RAs, in this case semaglutide, may not extend to patients whose disease has progressed to cirrhosis.
 

Dual and Triple Mechanisms of Action

Newer agents with double or triple mechanisms of action appear to have a more direct effect on the liver.

“Dual agents may have an added effect by improving MASLD directly through adipose regulation and thermogenesis, thereby improving fibrosis,” Said said.

An example is tirzepatide, a GLP-1 RA and an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Like GLP-1, GIP is an incretin. When used together as co-agonists, GLP-1 and GIP have been shown to increase insulin and glucagonostatic response and may work synergistically.

A new phase 2 trial that randomly assigned patients with biopsy-confirmed MASH and moderate or severe fibrosis to receive either once-weekly subcutaneous tirzepatide at one of three doses (5, 10, or 15 mg) or placebo found that tirzepatide at each dosage outperformed placebo in resolution of MASH without worsening of fibrosis.

“These findings were encouraging,” Said said. “We’ll see if the results continue into phase 3 trials.”

The combination of GLP-1 RAs with glucagon (GCG) receptor agonists also has garnered interest.

In a phase 2 trial, adults with biopsy-confirmed MASH and fibrosis stages F1-F3 were randomly assigned to receive either one of three doses of the GLP-1/GCG RA survodutide (2.4, 4.8, or 6 mg) or placebo. Survodutide at each dose was found to be superior to placebo in improving MASH without the worsening of fibrosis, reducing liver fat content by at least 30%, and decreasing liver fibrosis by at least one stage, with the 4.8-mg dose showing the best performance for each measure. However, adverse events, including nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, were more frequent with survodutide than with placebo.

Trials of triple-action agents (GLP-1/GIP/GCG RAs) are underway too.

The hope is the triple agonists could deliver greater reduction in hepatic fat in patients with MASLD, Sanyal said. 

Sanyal further noted that a reduction in liver fat is important, citing a meta-analysis that showed ≥ 30% relative decline in liver fat is associated with higher odds of histologic response and MASH resolution.

Sanyal pointed to efocipegtrutide (HM15211), a GLP-1/GIP/GCG RA, which demonstrated significant liver fat reduction after 12 weeks in patients with MASLD in a phase 1b/2a randomized, placebo-controlled trial and is now in phase 2 development.

Another example is retatrutide (LY3437943), a once-weekly injectable, that was associated with up to a 24.2% reduction in body weight at 48 weeks, compared with 2.1% with placebo, in a phase 2 trial involving patients with obesity.

A sub-study assessed the mean relative change from baseline in liver fat at 24 weeks. These participants, who also had MASLD and ≥ 10% of liver fat content, were randomly assigned to receive either retatrutide in one of four doses (1, 4, 8, or 12 mg) or placebo for 48 weeks. All doses of retatrutide showed significantly greater reduction in liver fat content compared with placebo in weeks 24-48, with a mean relative liver fat reduction > 80% at the two higher doses. Moreover, ≥ 80% of participants on the higher retatrutide doses experienced ≥ 70% reduction in liver fat at 48 weeks, compared with 0% reduction in those on placebo, and hepatic steatosis resolved in > 85% of these participants.

This space “continues to evolve at a rapid rate,” Sanyal said. For example, oral dual-action agents are under development.
 

Obstacles and Warnings

Sanyal warned that GLP-1 RAs can cause nausea, so they have to be introduced at a low dose and slowly titrated upward. They should be used with caution in people with a history of multiple endocrine neoplasia. There is also a small but increased risk for gallstone formation and gallstone-induced pancreatitis with rapid weight loss.

GLP-1 RAs may increase the risk for suicidal ideation, with the authors of a recent study calling for “urgent clarification” regarding this possibility.

Following reports of suicidality submitted through its Adverse Events Reporting System, the FDA concluded that it could find no causal relationship between these agents and increased risk for suicidal ideation but also that it could not “definitively rule out that a small risk may exist” and would continue to investigate.

Access to GLP-1 RAs is an obstacle as well. Semaglutide continues to be on the FDA’s shortage list.

“This is improving, but there are still issues around getting approval from insurance companies,” Sanyal said.

Many patients discontinue use because of tolerability or access issues, which is problematic because most regain the weight they had lost while on the medication.

“Right now, we see GLP-1 RAs as a long-term therapeutic commitment, but there is a lot of research interest in figuring out if there’s a more modest benefit — almost an induction-remission maintenance approach to weight loss,” Sanyal said. These are “evolving trends,” and it’s unclear how they will unfold.

“As of now, you have to decide that if you’re putting your patient on these medications, they will have to take them on a long-term basis and include that consideration in your risk-benefit analysis, together with any concerns about adverse effects,” he said.

Sanyal reported consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Said received research support from Exact Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Mallinckrodt.
 

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

To my fellow AGA Members, I’m not the first to tell you that real progress in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of digestive disease is at risk. Research funding from traditional sources, like the National Institutes of Health, continues to shrink. We can expect even greater cuts on the horizon.

GI investigators in the early stages of their careers are particularly hard hit. They are finding it much more difficult to secure needed federal funding. As a result, many of these investigators are walking away from GI research frustrated by a lack of support.

It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

You know that research has revolutionized the care of many digestive disease patients. These patients, as well as everyone in the GI field clinicians and researchers alike, have benefited from the discoveries of passionate investigators, past and present.

This is where you can help.

New treatments and devices are the result of years of research. The AGA Research Foundation grants are critical to continuing the GI pipeline. The AGA research awards program helps researchers take new directions and discover new treatments to better patient care.

Help us fund more researchers by supporting the AGA Research Foundation with a year-end donation. Your donation will support young investigators’ research careers and help assure research is continued.

Be gracious, generous and giving to the future of the GI specialty this holiday season. There are three easy ways to give:

Make a tax-deductible donation online at www. foundation.gastro.org. 

Send a donation through the mail to: 

AGA Research Foundation 

4930 Del Ray Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Or donate over the phone by calling (301) 222-4002. All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of US law. Join us!

Dr. Camilleri is AGA Research Foundation Chair and Past AGA Institute President. He is a consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

To my fellow AGA Members, I’m not the first to tell you that real progress in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of digestive disease is at risk. Research funding from traditional sources, like the National Institutes of Health, continues to shrink. We can expect even greater cuts on the horizon.

GI investigators in the early stages of their careers are particularly hard hit. They are finding it much more difficult to secure needed federal funding. As a result, many of these investigators are walking away from GI research frustrated by a lack of support.

It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

You know that research has revolutionized the care of many digestive disease patients. These patients, as well as everyone in the GI field clinicians and researchers alike, have benefited from the discoveries of passionate investigators, past and present.

This is where you can help.

New treatments and devices are the result of years of research. The AGA Research Foundation grants are critical to continuing the GI pipeline. The AGA research awards program helps researchers take new directions and discover new treatments to better patient care.

Help us fund more researchers by supporting the AGA Research Foundation with a year-end donation. Your donation will support young investigators’ research careers and help assure research is continued.

Be gracious, generous and giving to the future of the GI specialty this holiday season. There are three easy ways to give:

Make a tax-deductible donation online at www. foundation.gastro.org. 

Send a donation through the mail to: 

AGA Research Foundation 

4930 Del Ray Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Or donate over the phone by calling (301) 222-4002. All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of US law. Join us!

Dr. Camilleri is AGA Research Foundation Chair and Past AGA Institute President. He is a consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

To my fellow AGA Members, I’m not the first to tell you that real progress in the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of digestive disease is at risk. Research funding from traditional sources, like the National Institutes of Health, continues to shrink. We can expect even greater cuts on the horizon.

GI investigators in the early stages of their careers are particularly hard hit. They are finding it much more difficult to secure needed federal funding. As a result, many of these investigators are walking away from GI research frustrated by a lack of support.

It is our hope that physicians have an abundance of new tools and treatments to care for their patients suffering from digestive disorders.

You know that research has revolutionized the care of many digestive disease patients. These patients, as well as everyone in the GI field clinicians and researchers alike, have benefited from the discoveries of passionate investigators, past and present.

This is where you can help.

New treatments and devices are the result of years of research. The AGA Research Foundation grants are critical to continuing the GI pipeline. The AGA research awards program helps researchers take new directions and discover new treatments to better patient care.

Help us fund more researchers by supporting the AGA Research Foundation with a year-end donation. Your donation will support young investigators’ research careers and help assure research is continued.

Be gracious, generous and giving to the future of the GI specialty this holiday season. There are three easy ways to give:

Make a tax-deductible donation online at www. foundation.gastro.org. 

Send a donation through the mail to: 

AGA Research Foundation 

4930 Del Ray Avenue 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Or donate over the phone by calling (301) 222-4002. All gifts are tax-deductible to the fullest extent of US law. Join us!

Dr. Camilleri is AGA Research Foundation Chair and Past AGA Institute President. He is a consultant in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

Did you miss out on the AGA Postgraduate Course this year? We have you covered with AGA PG Course OnDemand, a complete capture of the 2024 AGA Postgraduate Course, The Latest from the Greatest.

Visit agau.gastro.org to purchase today for flexible, on-the-go access to the latest clinical advances in the GI field.

• Unparalleled access: Choose when and where you dive into content with convenient access from any computer or mobile device.
• Incredible faculty: Learn from renowned experts who will offer their perspectives on cutting-edge research and clinical guidance.
• Tangible strategies: Expert and early career faculty will guide you through challenging patient cases and provide strategies you can easily implement upon your return to the office.
• Efficient learning: Content is organized by category: GI oncology, neurogastroenterology & motility, obesity, advanced endoscopy, and liver.
• Continuing education: With CME testing integrated directly into each session, you can easily earn up to 16 CME and MOC credits through December 31, 2024.

Did you miss out on the AGA Postgraduate Course this year? We have you covered with AGA PG Course OnDemand, a complete capture of the 2024 AGA Postgraduate Course, The Latest from the Greatest.

Visit agau.gastro.org to purchase today for flexible, on-the-go access to the latest clinical advances in the GI field.

• Unparalleled access: Choose when and where you dive into content with convenient access from any computer or mobile device.
• Incredible faculty: Learn from renowned experts who will offer their perspectives on cutting-edge research and clinical guidance.
• Tangible strategies: Expert and early career faculty will guide you through challenging patient cases and provide strategies you can easily implement upon your return to the office.
• Efficient learning: Content is organized by category: GI oncology, neurogastroenterology & motility, obesity, advanced endoscopy, and liver.
• Continuing education: With CME testing integrated directly into each session, you can easily earn up to 16 CME and MOC credits through December 31, 2024.

Did you miss out on the AGA Postgraduate Course this year? We have you covered with AGA PG Course OnDemand, a complete capture of the 2024 AGA Postgraduate Course, The Latest from the Greatest.

Visit agau.gastro.org to purchase today for flexible, on-the-go access to the latest clinical advances in the GI field.

• Unparalleled access: Choose when and where you dive into content with convenient access from any computer or mobile device.
• Incredible faculty: Learn from renowned experts who will offer their perspectives on cutting-edge research and clinical guidance.
• Tangible strategies: Expert and early career faculty will guide you through challenging patient cases and provide strategies you can easily implement upon your return to the office.
• Efficient learning: Content is organized by category: GI oncology, neurogastroenterology & motility, obesity, advanced endoscopy, and liver.
• Continuing education: With CME testing integrated directly into each session, you can easily earn up to 16 CME and MOC credits through December 31, 2024.