Key clinical point: Cumulative local joint inflammation over time was significantly associated with radiographic joint damage progression in the same joint in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were treated to a target disease activity score (DAS) of ≤2.4 for 10 years.

Major finding: Cumulative joint swelling was positively associated with local joint damage progression in the same joint (β 0.14; 95% CI 0.13-0.15). Each additional visit for joint swelling increased the joint damage score by a 0.13 unit and frequency of joint swelling in same vs other joints better predicted local joint damage progression (P < .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the BeSt study included 473 patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive sequential monotherapy, step-up combination therapy, or initial combination therapy with methotrexate with or without sulfasalazine+prednisone or infliximab, with treatment intensification every 3 months until DAS ≤2.4 was achieved.

Disclosures: The BeSt study received funding from the Dutch College of Health Insurances and others. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Heckert SL et al. Frequency of joint inflammation is associated with local joint damage progression in rheumatoid arthritis despite long-term targeted treatment. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002552 (Jan 6). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002552

Key clinical point: Cumulative local joint inflammation over time was significantly associated with radiographic joint damage progression in the same joint in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were treated to a target disease activity score (DAS) of ≤2.4 for 10 years.

Major finding: Cumulative joint swelling was positively associated with local joint damage progression in the same joint (β 0.14; 95% CI 0.13-0.15). Each additional visit for joint swelling increased the joint damage score by a 0.13 unit and frequency of joint swelling in same vs other joints better predicted local joint damage progression (P < .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the BeSt study included 473 patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive sequential monotherapy, step-up combination therapy, or initial combination therapy with methotrexate with or without sulfasalazine+prednisone or infliximab, with treatment intensification every 3 months until DAS ≤2.4 was achieved.

Disclosures: The BeSt study received funding from the Dutch College of Health Insurances and others. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Heckert SL et al. Frequency of joint inflammation is associated with local joint damage progression in rheumatoid arthritis despite long-term targeted treatment. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002552 (Jan 6). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002552

Key clinical point: Cumulative local joint inflammation over time was significantly associated with radiographic joint damage progression in the same joint in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were treated to a target disease activity score (DAS) of ≤2.4 for 10 years.

Major finding: Cumulative joint swelling was positively associated with local joint damage progression in the same joint (β 0.14; 95% CI 0.13-0.15). Each additional visit for joint swelling increased the joint damage score by a 0.13 unit and frequency of joint swelling in same vs other joints better predicted local joint damage progression (P < .001).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the BeSt study included 473 patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive sequential monotherapy, step-up combination therapy, or initial combination therapy with methotrexate with or without sulfasalazine+prednisone or infliximab, with treatment intensification every 3 months until DAS ≤2.4 was achieved.

Disclosures: The BeSt study received funding from the Dutch College of Health Insurances and others. No competing interests were declared.

Source: Heckert SL et al. Frequency of joint inflammation is associated with local joint damage progression in rheumatoid arthritis despite long-term targeted treatment. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002552 (Jan 6). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002552

Key clinical point: “Plants for Joints” (PFJ), a 16-week multidisciplinary lifestyle program based on whole food plant-based diet, physical activity, and stress management in addition to usual care, significantly improved disease activity compared with usual care alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and low-to-moderate disease activity.

Major finding: After 16 weeks, patients receiving PFJ vs usual care alone had a greater reduction in disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28; mean difference −0.90; P < .0001) and were more likely to achieve DAS28 <2.60 (odds ratio [OR] 4.6) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Good Response (OR 4.3; both P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: This randomized controlled trial, “Plants for Joints,” included 77 patients with RA and low-to-moderate disease activity who were randomly assigned to receive PFJ intervention plus usual care or usual care alone.

Disclosures: The trial was funded by Reade (The Netherlands) and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Walrabenstein W et al. A multidisciplinary lifestyle program for rheumatoid arthritis: The “Plants for Joints” randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Jan 6). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac693

Key clinical point: “Plants for Joints” (PFJ), a 16-week multidisciplinary lifestyle program based on whole food plant-based diet, physical activity, and stress management in addition to usual care, significantly improved disease activity compared with usual care alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and low-to-moderate disease activity.

Major finding: After 16 weeks, patients receiving PFJ vs usual care alone had a greater reduction in disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28; mean difference −0.90; P < .0001) and were more likely to achieve DAS28 <2.60 (odds ratio [OR] 4.6) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Good Response (OR 4.3; both P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: This randomized controlled trial, “Plants for Joints,” included 77 patients with RA and low-to-moderate disease activity who were randomly assigned to receive PFJ intervention plus usual care or usual care alone.

Disclosures: The trial was funded by Reade (The Netherlands) and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Walrabenstein W et al. A multidisciplinary lifestyle program for rheumatoid arthritis: The “Plants for Joints” randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Jan 6). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac693

Key clinical point: “Plants for Joints” (PFJ), a 16-week multidisciplinary lifestyle program based on whole food plant-based diet, physical activity, and stress management in addition to usual care, significantly improved disease activity compared with usual care alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and low-to-moderate disease activity.

Major finding: After 16 weeks, patients receiving PFJ vs usual care alone had a greater reduction in disease activity score of 28 joints (DAS28; mean difference −0.90; P < .0001) and were more likely to achieve DAS28 <2.60 (odds ratio [OR] 4.6) and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Good Response (OR 4.3; both P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.

Study details: This randomized controlled trial, “Plants for Joints,” included 77 patients with RA and low-to-moderate disease activity who were randomly assigned to receive PFJ intervention plus usual care or usual care alone.

Disclosures: The trial was funded by Reade (The Netherlands) and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Walrabenstein W et al. A multidisciplinary lifestyle program for rheumatoid arthritis: The “Plants for Joints” randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Jan 6). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac693

Key clinical point: Tapering glucocorticoids to doses >2.5 mg/day was effective with no increase in the risk for flare, whereas tapering to doses ≤2.5 mg/day significantly increased the risk for flare in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Discontinuation of glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.45; 95% CI 1.13-2.24) and tapering of glucocorticoid dose to 0-2.5 mg/day (aOR 1.37; 95% CI 1.06-2.01) were significantly associated with an increased risk for flare, whereas tapering of glucocorticoid dose to >2.5 mg/day did not significantly increase the risk for flare compared with no tapering.

Study details: The data come from a case-crossover study including 508 patients with RA receiving bDMARD with or without glucocorticoids, of which 52.5% of patients reported at least one flare.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Source: Adami G et al. Tapering glucocorticoids and risk of flare in rheumatoid arthritis on biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002792 (Jan 4). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002792

Key clinical point: Tapering glucocorticoids to doses >2.5 mg/day was effective with no increase in the risk for flare, whereas tapering to doses ≤2.5 mg/day significantly increased the risk for flare in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Discontinuation of glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.45; 95% CI 1.13-2.24) and tapering of glucocorticoid dose to 0-2.5 mg/day (aOR 1.37; 95% CI 1.06-2.01) were significantly associated with an increased risk for flare, whereas tapering of glucocorticoid dose to >2.5 mg/day did not significantly increase the risk for flare compared with no tapering.

Study details: The data come from a case-crossover study including 508 patients with RA receiving bDMARD with or without glucocorticoids, of which 52.5% of patients reported at least one flare.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Source: Adami G et al. Tapering glucocorticoids and risk of flare in rheumatoid arthritis on biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002792 (Jan 4). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002792

Key clinical point: Tapering glucocorticoids to doses >2.5 mg/day was effective with no increase in the risk for flare, whereas tapering to doses ≤2.5 mg/day significantly increased the risk for flare in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD).

Major finding: Discontinuation of glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.45; 95% CI 1.13-2.24) and tapering of glucocorticoid dose to 0-2.5 mg/day (aOR 1.37; 95% CI 1.06-2.01) were significantly associated with an increased risk for flare, whereas tapering of glucocorticoid dose to >2.5 mg/day did not significantly increase the risk for flare compared with no tapering.

Study details: The data come from a case-crossover study including 508 patients with RA receiving bDMARD with or without glucocorticoids, of which 52.5% of patients reported at least one flare.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Source: Adami G et al. Tapering glucocorticoids and risk of flare in rheumatoid arthritis on biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002792 (Jan 4). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002792

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were males or had multiple comorbidities were less likely to achieve quality care markers, thereby highlighting the need to prioritize early treatment in the vulnerable patient population.

Major finding: Among patients with RA, males (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.72-0.73) and those with a Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.86-0.90) were less likely to receive a rheumatologist referral, with findings being similar for annual physical examination. Additionally, the presence of diabetes was associated with reduced odds of receiving a rheumatologist referral (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.76-0.78) or annual physical examination (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.56-0.62).

Study details: This retrospective observational cohort study included 581,770 patients with incident RA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by joint grants from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-University of Michigan Medical Center to two authors. KC Chung reported receiving funding, research grant, and book royalties from various sources.

Source: Seyferth AV et al. Factors associated with quality care among adults with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2246299 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46299.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were males or had multiple comorbidities were less likely to achieve quality care markers, thereby highlighting the need to prioritize early treatment in the vulnerable patient population.

Major finding: Among patients with RA, males (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.72-0.73) and those with a Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.86-0.90) were less likely to receive a rheumatologist referral, with findings being similar for annual physical examination. Additionally, the presence of diabetes was associated with reduced odds of receiving a rheumatologist referral (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.76-0.78) or annual physical examination (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.56-0.62).

Study details: This retrospective observational cohort study included 581,770 patients with incident RA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by joint grants from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-University of Michigan Medical Center to two authors. KC Chung reported receiving funding, research grant, and book royalties from various sources.

Source: Seyferth AV et al. Factors associated with quality care among adults with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2246299 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46299.

Key clinical point: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were males or had multiple comorbidities were less likely to achieve quality care markers, thereby highlighting the need to prioritize early treatment in the vulnerable patient population.

Major finding: Among patients with RA, males (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.72-0.73) and those with a Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.86-0.90) were less likely to receive a rheumatologist referral, with findings being similar for annual physical examination. Additionally, the presence of diabetes was associated with reduced odds of receiving a rheumatologist referral (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.76-0.78) or annual physical examination (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.56-0.62).

Study details: This retrospective observational cohort study included 581,770 patients with incident RA.

Disclosures: This study was funded by joint grants from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-University of Michigan Medical Center to two authors. KC Chung reported receiving funding, research grant, and book royalties from various sources.

Source: Seyferth AV et al. Factors associated with quality care among adults with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(12):e2246299 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.46299.

Key clinical point: Current use of oral glucocorticoids significantly increased the risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) in a dose-dependent manner in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the absolute risk was low with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use.

Major finding: Relative risk for SAB was 2.2-fold (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.2; 95% CI 1.3-4.0) and 9.5-fold (aOR 9.5; 95% CI 3.9-22.7) higher with current use of ≤7.5 and >7.5 mg/day prednisolone-equivalent oral glucocorticoids, respectively. The number needed to harm was approximately 10 times higher with the current use of bDMARD vs >7.5 mg/day oral glucocorticoids (1172 vs 110).

Study details: This nested case-control study included 180 patients with first-time SAB who received glucocorticoids or bDMARD and 720 age- and sex-matched control individuals from a cohort of 30,479 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by The Danish Rheumatism Association (TDRA) and Beckett-Fonden. Several authors reported ties with various sources, including TDRA and Beckett-Fonden.

Source: Dieperink SS et al. Antirheumatic treatment, disease activity and risk of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide nested case-control study. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002636 (Dec 14). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002636

Key clinical point: Current use of oral glucocorticoids significantly increased the risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) in a dose-dependent manner in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the absolute risk was low with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use.

Major finding: Relative risk for SAB was 2.2-fold (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.2; 95% CI 1.3-4.0) and 9.5-fold (aOR 9.5; 95% CI 3.9-22.7) higher with current use of ≤7.5 and >7.5 mg/day prednisolone-equivalent oral glucocorticoids, respectively. The number needed to harm was approximately 10 times higher with the current use of bDMARD vs >7.5 mg/day oral glucocorticoids (1172 vs 110).

Study details: This nested case-control study included 180 patients with first-time SAB who received glucocorticoids or bDMARD and 720 age- and sex-matched control individuals from a cohort of 30,479 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by The Danish Rheumatism Association (TDRA) and Beckett-Fonden. Several authors reported ties with various sources, including TDRA and Beckett-Fonden.

Source: Dieperink SS et al. Antirheumatic treatment, disease activity and risk of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide nested case-control study. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002636 (Dec 14). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002636

Key clinical point: Current use of oral glucocorticoids significantly increased the risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) in a dose-dependent manner in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but the absolute risk was low with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use.

Major finding: Relative risk for SAB was 2.2-fold (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.2; 95% CI 1.3-4.0) and 9.5-fold (aOR 9.5; 95% CI 3.9-22.7) higher with current use of ≤7.5 and >7.5 mg/day prednisolone-equivalent oral glucocorticoids, respectively. The number needed to harm was approximately 10 times higher with the current use of bDMARD vs >7.5 mg/day oral glucocorticoids (1172 vs 110).

Study details: This nested case-control study included 180 patients with first-time SAB who received glucocorticoids or bDMARD and 720 age- and sex-matched control individuals from a cohort of 30,479 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by The Danish Rheumatism Association (TDRA) and Beckett-Fonden. Several authors reported ties with various sources, including TDRA and Beckett-Fonden.

Source: Dieperink SS et al. Antirheumatic treatment, disease activity and risk of Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in rheumatoid arthritis: A nationwide nested case-control study. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002636 (Dec 14). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002636

Key clinical point: The probability of continued use of glucocorticoids after bridging was low among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a shorter oral bridging schedule and lower initial dose being associated with fewer patients taking glucocorticoids at 18 months after bridging.

Major finding: The probability of using or restarting glucocorticoids decreased from 0.18 at 1 month to 0.07 at 6, 12, and 18 months of ending glucocorticoid bridging therapy. A longer duration of bridging schedule (odds ratio [OR] 1.14; 95% CI 1.05-1.24) and higher initial glucocorticoid dose (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.06) were associated with more patients taking glucocorticoids at 18 months after bridging.

Study details: This individual patient data meta-analysis of seven clinical trials included 1653 patients with newly diagnosed RA, undifferentiated arthritis, or a high-risk profile for persistent arthritis who received glucocorticoids bridging therapy as initial treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: van Ouwerkerk L et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis on continued use of glucocorticoids after their initiation as bridging therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Dec 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223443

Key clinical point: The probability of continued use of glucocorticoids after bridging was low among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a shorter oral bridging schedule and lower initial dose being associated with fewer patients taking glucocorticoids at 18 months after bridging.

Major finding: The probability of using or restarting glucocorticoids decreased from 0.18 at 1 month to 0.07 at 6, 12, and 18 months of ending glucocorticoid bridging therapy. A longer duration of bridging schedule (odds ratio [OR] 1.14; 95% CI 1.05-1.24) and higher initial glucocorticoid dose (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.06) were associated with more patients taking glucocorticoids at 18 months after bridging.

Study details: This individual patient data meta-analysis of seven clinical trials included 1653 patients with newly diagnosed RA, undifferentiated arthritis, or a high-risk profile for persistent arthritis who received glucocorticoids bridging therapy as initial treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: van Ouwerkerk L et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis on continued use of glucocorticoids after their initiation as bridging therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Dec 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223443

Key clinical point: The probability of continued use of glucocorticoids after bridging was low among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a shorter oral bridging schedule and lower initial dose being associated with fewer patients taking glucocorticoids at 18 months after bridging.

Major finding: The probability of using or restarting glucocorticoids decreased from 0.18 at 1 month to 0.07 at 6, 12, and 18 months of ending glucocorticoid bridging therapy. A longer duration of bridging schedule (odds ratio [OR] 1.14; 95% CI 1.05-1.24) and higher initial glucocorticoid dose (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.06) were associated with more patients taking glucocorticoids at 18 months after bridging.

Study details: This individual patient data meta-analysis of seven clinical trials included 1653 patients with newly diagnosed RA, undifferentiated arthritis, or a high-risk profile for persistent arthritis who received glucocorticoids bridging therapy as initial treatment.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Several authors reported ties with various sources.

Source: van Ouwerkerk L et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis on continued use of glucocorticoids after their initiation as bridging therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Dec 16). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223443

Key clinical point: Methotrexate use before conception increased the risk for pregnancy losses and abortion in childbearing-age women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the risk for elective termination of pregnancy (ETOP) being significantly higher with methotrexate use in the period close to conception.

Major finding: Methotrexate use any time before conception was significantly associated with a higher risk for pregnancy losses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.22; P < .001) and abortion (aOR 1.76; P < .01) in women with vs without RA, with the risk for ETOP being almost 4-fold higher with methotrexate use in the 3-month window before conception (aOR 4.77; P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including childbearing-age women with RA who did (n = 223) and did not (n = 323) receive methotrexate and those without RA who did not receive methotrexate (n = 1690).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Society for Rheumatology. This authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Zanetti A et al. Impact of rheumatoid arthritis and methotrexate on pregnancy outcomes: Retrospective cohort study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002412 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002412

Key clinical point: Methotrexate use before conception increased the risk for pregnancy losses and abortion in childbearing-age women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the risk for elective termination of pregnancy (ETOP) being significantly higher with methotrexate use in the period close to conception.

Major finding: Methotrexate use any time before conception was significantly associated with a higher risk for pregnancy losses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.22; P < .001) and abortion (aOR 1.76; P < .01) in women with vs without RA, with the risk for ETOP being almost 4-fold higher with methotrexate use in the 3-month window before conception (aOR 4.77; P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including childbearing-age women with RA who did (n = 223) and did not (n = 323) receive methotrexate and those without RA who did not receive methotrexate (n = 1690).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Society for Rheumatology. This authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Zanetti A et al. Impact of rheumatoid arthritis and methotrexate on pregnancy outcomes: Retrospective cohort study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002412 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002412

Key clinical point: Methotrexate use before conception increased the risk for pregnancy losses and abortion in childbearing-age women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with the risk for elective termination of pregnancy (ETOP) being significantly higher with methotrexate use in the period close to conception.

Major finding: Methotrexate use any time before conception was significantly associated with a higher risk for pregnancy losses (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.22; P < .001) and abortion (aOR 1.76; P < .01) in women with vs without RA, with the risk for ETOP being almost 4-fold higher with methotrexate use in the 3-month window before conception (aOR 4.77; P < .05).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective cohort study including childbearing-age women with RA who did (n = 223) and did not (n = 323) receive methotrexate and those without RA who did not receive methotrexate (n = 1690).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Society for Rheumatology. This authors did not declare any conflicts of interest.

Source: Zanetti A et al. Impact of rheumatoid arthritis and methotrexate on pregnancy outcomes: Retrospective cohort study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology. RMD Open. 2022;8(2):e002412 (Dec 12). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002412

The selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene appears to improve the vaginal microbiome of postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), according to results from a small Italian case-control study in the journal Menopause.

The study sheds microbiological light on the mechanisms of ospemifene and low-dose systemic hormone therapy, which are widely used to treat genitourinary symptoms. Both had a positive effect on vaginal well-being, likely by reducing potentially harmful bacteria and increasing health-promoting acid-friendly microorganisms, writes a group led by M. Cristina Meriggiola, MD, PhD, of the gynecology and physiopathology of human reproduction unit at the University of Bologna, Italy.

VVA occurs in about 50% of postmenopausal women and produces a less favorable, less acidic vaginal microbiome profile than that of unaffected women. “The loss of estrogen leads to lower concentrations of Lactobacilli, bacteria that lower the pH. As a result, other bacterial species fill in the void,” explained Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., and medical director of the North American Menopause Society.

Added Tina Murphy, APN, a NAMS-certified menopause practitioner at Northwestern Medicine Orland Park in Illinois, “When this protective flora declines, then pathogenic bacteria can predominate the microbiome, which can contribute to vaginal irritation, infection, UTI’s, dyspareunia, and discomfort. Balancing and restoring the microbiome can mitigate the effects of estrogen depletion on the vaginal tissue and prevent the untoward effects of the hypoestrogenic state.” While ospemifene and hormone therapy are common therapies for the genitourinary symptoms of menopause, the focus has been on their treatment efficacy, not their effect on the microbiome profile, added Dr. Faubion. Only about 9% of women with menopause-related genitourinary symptoms receive prescription treatment, she added.
 

The study

Of 67 eligible postmenopausal participants in their mid-50s enrolled at a gynecology clinic from April 2019 to February 2020, 39 were diagnosed with VVA and 28 were considered healthy controls. In the atrophic group, 20 were prescribed ospemifene and 19 received hormone treatment.

Only those women with VVA but no menopausal vasomotor symptoms received ospemifene (60 mg/day); symptomatic women received hormone therapy according to guidelines.

The researchers calculated the women’s vaginal health index (VHI) based on elasticity, secretions, pH level, epithelial mucosa, and hydration. They used swabs to assess vaginal maturation index (VMI) by percentages of superficial, intermediate, and parabasal cells. Evaluation of the vaginal microbiome was done with 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and clinical and microbiological analyses were repeated after 3 months.

The vaginal microbiome of atrophic women was characterized by a significant reduction of benign Lactobacillus bacteria (P = .002) and an increase of potentially pathogenic Streptococcus (P = .008) and Sneathia (P = .02) bacteria.

The vaginal microbiome of women with VVA was depleted, within the Lactobacillus genus, in the L. crispatus species, a hallmark of vaginal health that has significant antimicrobial activity against endogenous and exogenous pathogens.

Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the VHI/VMI and Lactobacillus abundance (P = .002 and P = 0.035, respectively).

While the lactic acid–producing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera were strongly associated with healthy controls, the characteristics of VVA patients were strongly associated with Streptococcus, Prevotella, Alloscardovia, and Staphylococcus.

Both therapeutic approaches effectively improved vaginal indices but by different routes. Systemic hormone treatment induced changes in minority bacterial groups in the vaginal microbiome, whereas ospemifene eliminated specific harmful bacterial taxa, such as Staphylococcus (P = .04) and Clostridium (P = .01). Both treatments induced a trend in the increase of beneficial Bifidobacteria.

A 2022 study reported that vaginal estradiol tablets significantly changed the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but the reductions in bothersome symptoms were similar.
 

The future

“Areas for future study include the assessment of changes in the vaginal microbiome, proteomic profiles, and immunologic markers with various treatments and the associations between these changes and genitourinary symptoms,” Dr. Faubion said. She added that, while there may be a role at some point for oral or topical probiotics, “Thus far, probiotics have not demonstrated significant benefits.”

Meanwhile, said Ms. Murphy, “There are many options available that may benefit our patients. As a provider, meeting with your patient, discussing her concerns and individual risk factors is the most important part of choosing the correct treatment plan.”

The authors call for further studies to confirm the observed modifications of the vaginal ecosystem. In the meantime, Dr. Meriggiola said in an interview, “My best advice to physicians is to ask women if they have this problem. Do not ignore it; be proactive and treat. There are many options on the market for genitourinary symptoms – not just for postmenopausal women but breast cancer survivors as well.”

Dr. Meriggiola’s group is planning to study ospemifene in cancer patients, whose quality of life is severely affected by VVA.

This study received no financial support. Dr. Meriggiola reported past financial relationships with Shionogi Limited, Teramex, Organon, Italfarmaco, MDS Italia, and Bayer. Coauthor Dr. Baldassarre disclosed past financial relationships with Shionogi. Ms. Murphy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest with respect to her comments. Dr. Faubion is medical director of the North American Menopause Society and editor of the journal Menopause.

The selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene appears to improve the vaginal microbiome of postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), according to results from a small Italian case-control study in the journal Menopause.

The study sheds microbiological light on the mechanisms of ospemifene and low-dose systemic hormone therapy, which are widely used to treat genitourinary symptoms. Both had a positive effect on vaginal well-being, likely by reducing potentially harmful bacteria and increasing health-promoting acid-friendly microorganisms, writes a group led by M. Cristina Meriggiola, MD, PhD, of the gynecology and physiopathology of human reproduction unit at the University of Bologna, Italy.

VVA occurs in about 50% of postmenopausal women and produces a less favorable, less acidic vaginal microbiome profile than that of unaffected women. “The loss of estrogen leads to lower concentrations of Lactobacilli, bacteria that lower the pH. As a result, other bacterial species fill in the void,” explained Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., and medical director of the North American Menopause Society.

Added Tina Murphy, APN, a NAMS-certified menopause practitioner at Northwestern Medicine Orland Park in Illinois, “When this protective flora declines, then pathogenic bacteria can predominate the microbiome, which can contribute to vaginal irritation, infection, UTI’s, dyspareunia, and discomfort. Balancing and restoring the microbiome can mitigate the effects of estrogen depletion on the vaginal tissue and prevent the untoward effects of the hypoestrogenic state.” While ospemifene and hormone therapy are common therapies for the genitourinary symptoms of menopause, the focus has been on their treatment efficacy, not their effect on the microbiome profile, added Dr. Faubion. Only about 9% of women with menopause-related genitourinary symptoms receive prescription treatment, she added.
 

The study

Of 67 eligible postmenopausal participants in their mid-50s enrolled at a gynecology clinic from April 2019 to February 2020, 39 were diagnosed with VVA and 28 were considered healthy controls. In the atrophic group, 20 were prescribed ospemifene and 19 received hormone treatment.

Only those women with VVA but no menopausal vasomotor symptoms received ospemifene (60 mg/day); symptomatic women received hormone therapy according to guidelines.

The researchers calculated the women’s vaginal health index (VHI) based on elasticity, secretions, pH level, epithelial mucosa, and hydration. They used swabs to assess vaginal maturation index (VMI) by percentages of superficial, intermediate, and parabasal cells. Evaluation of the vaginal microbiome was done with 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and clinical and microbiological analyses were repeated after 3 months.

The vaginal microbiome of atrophic women was characterized by a significant reduction of benign Lactobacillus bacteria (P = .002) and an increase of potentially pathogenic Streptococcus (P = .008) and Sneathia (P = .02) bacteria.

The vaginal microbiome of women with VVA was depleted, within the Lactobacillus genus, in the L. crispatus species, a hallmark of vaginal health that has significant antimicrobial activity against endogenous and exogenous pathogens.

Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the VHI/VMI and Lactobacillus abundance (P = .002 and P = 0.035, respectively).

While the lactic acid–producing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera were strongly associated with healthy controls, the characteristics of VVA patients were strongly associated with Streptococcus, Prevotella, Alloscardovia, and Staphylococcus.

Both therapeutic approaches effectively improved vaginal indices but by different routes. Systemic hormone treatment induced changes in minority bacterial groups in the vaginal microbiome, whereas ospemifene eliminated specific harmful bacterial taxa, such as Staphylococcus (P = .04) and Clostridium (P = .01). Both treatments induced a trend in the increase of beneficial Bifidobacteria.

A 2022 study reported that vaginal estradiol tablets significantly changed the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but the reductions in bothersome symptoms were similar.
 

The future

“Areas for future study include the assessment of changes in the vaginal microbiome, proteomic profiles, and immunologic markers with various treatments and the associations between these changes and genitourinary symptoms,” Dr. Faubion said. She added that, while there may be a role at some point for oral or topical probiotics, “Thus far, probiotics have not demonstrated significant benefits.”

Meanwhile, said Ms. Murphy, “There are many options available that may benefit our patients. As a provider, meeting with your patient, discussing her concerns and individual risk factors is the most important part of choosing the correct treatment plan.”

The authors call for further studies to confirm the observed modifications of the vaginal ecosystem. In the meantime, Dr. Meriggiola said in an interview, “My best advice to physicians is to ask women if they have this problem. Do not ignore it; be proactive and treat. There are many options on the market for genitourinary symptoms – not just for postmenopausal women but breast cancer survivors as well.”

Dr. Meriggiola’s group is planning to study ospemifene in cancer patients, whose quality of life is severely affected by VVA.

This study received no financial support. Dr. Meriggiola reported past financial relationships with Shionogi Limited, Teramex, Organon, Italfarmaco, MDS Italia, and Bayer. Coauthor Dr. Baldassarre disclosed past financial relationships with Shionogi. Ms. Murphy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest with respect to her comments. Dr. Faubion is medical director of the North American Menopause Society and editor of the journal Menopause.

The selective estrogen receptor modulator ospemifene appears to improve the vaginal microbiome of postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), according to results from a small Italian case-control study in the journal Menopause.

The study sheds microbiological light on the mechanisms of ospemifene and low-dose systemic hormone therapy, which are widely used to treat genitourinary symptoms. Both had a positive effect on vaginal well-being, likely by reducing potentially harmful bacteria and increasing health-promoting acid-friendly microorganisms, writes a group led by M. Cristina Meriggiola, MD, PhD, of the gynecology and physiopathology of human reproduction unit at the University of Bologna, Italy.

VVA occurs in about 50% of postmenopausal women and produces a less favorable, less acidic vaginal microbiome profile than that of unaffected women. “The loss of estrogen leads to lower concentrations of Lactobacilli, bacteria that lower the pH. As a result, other bacterial species fill in the void,” explained Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, MBA, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health in Jacksonville, Fla., and medical director of the North American Menopause Society.

Added Tina Murphy, APN, a NAMS-certified menopause practitioner at Northwestern Medicine Orland Park in Illinois, “When this protective flora declines, then pathogenic bacteria can predominate the microbiome, which can contribute to vaginal irritation, infection, UTI’s, dyspareunia, and discomfort. Balancing and restoring the microbiome can mitigate the effects of estrogen depletion on the vaginal tissue and prevent the untoward effects of the hypoestrogenic state.” While ospemifene and hormone therapy are common therapies for the genitourinary symptoms of menopause, the focus has been on their treatment efficacy, not their effect on the microbiome profile, added Dr. Faubion. Only about 9% of women with menopause-related genitourinary symptoms receive prescription treatment, she added.
 

The study

Of 67 eligible postmenopausal participants in their mid-50s enrolled at a gynecology clinic from April 2019 to February 2020, 39 were diagnosed with VVA and 28 were considered healthy controls. In the atrophic group, 20 were prescribed ospemifene and 19 received hormone treatment.

Only those women with VVA but no menopausal vasomotor symptoms received ospemifene (60 mg/day); symptomatic women received hormone therapy according to guidelines.

The researchers calculated the women’s vaginal health index (VHI) based on elasticity, secretions, pH level, epithelial mucosa, and hydration. They used swabs to assess vaginal maturation index (VMI) by percentages of superficial, intermediate, and parabasal cells. Evaluation of the vaginal microbiome was done with 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and clinical and microbiological analyses were repeated after 3 months.

The vaginal microbiome of atrophic women was characterized by a significant reduction of benign Lactobacillus bacteria (P = .002) and an increase of potentially pathogenic Streptococcus (P = .008) and Sneathia (P = .02) bacteria.

The vaginal microbiome of women with VVA was depleted, within the Lactobacillus genus, in the L. crispatus species, a hallmark of vaginal health that has significant antimicrobial activity against endogenous and exogenous pathogens.

Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between the VHI/VMI and Lactobacillus abundance (P = .002 and P = 0.035, respectively).

While the lactic acid–producing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium genera were strongly associated with healthy controls, the characteristics of VVA patients were strongly associated with Streptococcus, Prevotella, Alloscardovia, and Staphylococcus.

Both therapeutic approaches effectively improved vaginal indices but by different routes. Systemic hormone treatment induced changes in minority bacterial groups in the vaginal microbiome, whereas ospemifene eliminated specific harmful bacterial taxa, such as Staphylococcus (P = .04) and Clostridium (P = .01). Both treatments induced a trend in the increase of beneficial Bifidobacteria.

A 2022 study reported that vaginal estradiol tablets significantly changed the vaginal microbiota in postmenopausal women compared with vaginal moisturizer or placebo, but the reductions in bothersome symptoms were similar.
 

The future

“Areas for future study include the assessment of changes in the vaginal microbiome, proteomic profiles, and immunologic markers with various treatments and the associations between these changes and genitourinary symptoms,” Dr. Faubion said. She added that, while there may be a role at some point for oral or topical probiotics, “Thus far, probiotics have not demonstrated significant benefits.”

Meanwhile, said Ms. Murphy, “There are many options available that may benefit our patients. As a provider, meeting with your patient, discussing her concerns and individual risk factors is the most important part of choosing the correct treatment plan.”

The authors call for further studies to confirm the observed modifications of the vaginal ecosystem. In the meantime, Dr. Meriggiola said in an interview, “My best advice to physicians is to ask women if they have this problem. Do not ignore it; be proactive and treat. There are many options on the market for genitourinary symptoms – not just for postmenopausal women but breast cancer survivors as well.”

Dr. Meriggiola’s group is planning to study ospemifene in cancer patients, whose quality of life is severely affected by VVA.

This study received no financial support. Dr. Meriggiola reported past financial relationships with Shionogi Limited, Teramex, Organon, Italfarmaco, MDS Italia, and Bayer. Coauthor Dr. Baldassarre disclosed past financial relationships with Shionogi. Ms. Murphy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest with respect to her comments. Dr. Faubion is medical director of the North American Menopause Society and editor of the journal Menopause.

A recently discovered inflammatory disease known as VEXAS syndrome is more common, variable, and dangerous than previously understood, according to results of a retrospective observational study of a large health care system database. The findings, published in JAMA, found that it struck 1 in 4,269 men over the age of 50 in a largely White population and caused a wide variety of symptoms.

“The disease is quite severe,” study lead author David Beck, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Patients with the condition “have a variety of clinical symptoms affecting different parts of the body and are being managed by different medical specialties.”

Dr. Beck and colleagues first described VEXAS (vacuoles, E1-ubiquitin-activating enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome in 2020. They linked it to mutations in the UBA1 (ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1) gene. The enzyme initiates a process that identifies misfolded proteins as targets for degradation.

“VEXAS syndrome is characterized by anemia and inflammation in the skin, lungs, cartilage, and joints,” Dr. Beck said. “These symptoms are frequently mistaken for other rheumatic or hematologic diseases. However, this syndrome has a different cause, is treated differently, requires additional monitoring, and can be far more severe.”

According to him, hundreds of people have been diagnosed with the disease in the short time since it was defined. The disease is believed to be fatal in some cases. A previous report found that the median survival was 9 years among patients with a certain variant; that was significantly less than patients with two other variants.

For the new study, researchers searched for UBA1 variants in genetic data from 163,096 subjects (mean age, 52.8 years; 94% White, 61% women) who took part in the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative. The 1996-2022 data comes from patients at 10 Pennsylvania hospitals.

Eleven people (9 males, 2 females) had likely UBA1 variants, and all had anemia. The cases accounted for 1 in 13,591 unrelated people (95% confidence interval, 1:7,775-1:23,758), 1 in 4,269 men older than 50 years (95% CI, 1:2,319-1:7,859), and 1 in 26,238 women older than 50 years (95% CI, 1:7,196-1:147,669).

Other common findings included macrocytosis (91%), skin problems (73%), and pulmonary disease (91%). Ten patients (91%) required transfusions.

Five of the 11 subjects didn’t meet the previously defined criteria for VEXAS syndrome. None had been diagnosed with the condition, which is not surprising considering that it hadn’t been discovered and described until recently.

Just over half of the patients – 55% – had a clinical diagnosis that was previously linked to VEXAS syndrome. “This means that slightly less than half of the patients with VEXAS syndrome had no clear associated clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Beck said. “The lack of associated clinical diagnoses may be due to the variety of nonspecific clinical characteristics that span different subspecialities in VEXAS syndrome. VEXAS syndrome represents an example of a multisystem disease where patients and their symptoms may get lost in the shuffle.”

In the future, “professionals should look out for patients with unexplained inflammation – and some combination of hematologic, rheumatologic, pulmonary, and dermatologic clinical manifestations – that either don’t carry a clinical diagnosis or don’t respond to first-line therapies,” Dr. Beck said. “These patients will also frequently be anemic, have low platelet counts, elevated markers of inflammation in the blood, and be dependent on corticosteroids.”

Diagnosis can be made via genetic testing, but the study authors note that it “is not routinely offered on standard workup for myeloid neoplasms or immune dysregulation diagnostic panels.”

As for treatment, Dr. Beck said the disease “can be partially controlled by multiple different anticytokine therapies or biologics. However, in most cases, patients still need additional steroids and/or disease-modifying antirheumatic agents [DMARDs]. In addition, bone marrow transplantation has shown signs of being a highly effective therapy.”

The study authors say more research is needed to understand the disease’s prevalence in more diverse populations.

In an interview, Matthew J. Koster, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who’s studied the disease but didn’t take part in this research project, said the findings are valid and “highly important.

“The findings of this study highlight what many academic and quaternary referral centers were wondering: Is VEXAS really more common than we think, with patients hiding in plain sight? The answer is yes,” he said. “Currently, there are less than 400 cases reported in the literature of VEXAS, but large centers are diagnosing this condition with some frequency. For example, at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, we diagnose on average one new patient with VEXAS every 7-14 days and have diagnosed 60 in the past 18 months. A national collaborative group in France has diagnosed approximately 250 patients over that same time frame when pooling patients nationwide.”

The prevalence is high enough, he said, that “clinicians should consider that some of the patients with diseases that are not responding to treatment may in fact have VEXAS rather than ‘refractory’ relapsing polychondritis or ‘recalcitrant’ rheumatoid arthritis, etc.”

The National Institute of Health funded the study. Dr. Beck, the other authors, and Dr. Koster report no disclosures.

A recently discovered inflammatory disease known as VEXAS syndrome is more common, variable, and dangerous than previously understood, according to results of a retrospective observational study of a large health care system database. The findings, published in JAMA, found that it struck 1 in 4,269 men over the age of 50 in a largely White population and caused a wide variety of symptoms.

“The disease is quite severe,” study lead author David Beck, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Patients with the condition “have a variety of clinical symptoms affecting different parts of the body and are being managed by different medical specialties.”

Dr. Beck and colleagues first described VEXAS (vacuoles, E1-ubiquitin-activating enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome in 2020. They linked it to mutations in the UBA1 (ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1) gene. The enzyme initiates a process that identifies misfolded proteins as targets for degradation.

“VEXAS syndrome is characterized by anemia and inflammation in the skin, lungs, cartilage, and joints,” Dr. Beck said. “These symptoms are frequently mistaken for other rheumatic or hematologic diseases. However, this syndrome has a different cause, is treated differently, requires additional monitoring, and can be far more severe.”

According to him, hundreds of people have been diagnosed with the disease in the short time since it was defined. The disease is believed to be fatal in some cases. A previous report found that the median survival was 9 years among patients with a certain variant; that was significantly less than patients with two other variants.

For the new study, researchers searched for UBA1 variants in genetic data from 163,096 subjects (mean age, 52.8 years; 94% White, 61% women) who took part in the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative. The 1996-2022 data comes from patients at 10 Pennsylvania hospitals.

Eleven people (9 males, 2 females) had likely UBA1 variants, and all had anemia. The cases accounted for 1 in 13,591 unrelated people (95% confidence interval, 1:7,775-1:23,758), 1 in 4,269 men older than 50 years (95% CI, 1:2,319-1:7,859), and 1 in 26,238 women older than 50 years (95% CI, 1:7,196-1:147,669).

Other common findings included macrocytosis (91%), skin problems (73%), and pulmonary disease (91%). Ten patients (91%) required transfusions.

Five of the 11 subjects didn’t meet the previously defined criteria for VEXAS syndrome. None had been diagnosed with the condition, which is not surprising considering that it hadn’t been discovered and described until recently.

Just over half of the patients – 55% – had a clinical diagnosis that was previously linked to VEXAS syndrome. “This means that slightly less than half of the patients with VEXAS syndrome had no clear associated clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Beck said. “The lack of associated clinical diagnoses may be due to the variety of nonspecific clinical characteristics that span different subspecialities in VEXAS syndrome. VEXAS syndrome represents an example of a multisystem disease where patients and their symptoms may get lost in the shuffle.”

In the future, “professionals should look out for patients with unexplained inflammation – and some combination of hematologic, rheumatologic, pulmonary, and dermatologic clinical manifestations – that either don’t carry a clinical diagnosis or don’t respond to first-line therapies,” Dr. Beck said. “These patients will also frequently be anemic, have low platelet counts, elevated markers of inflammation in the blood, and be dependent on corticosteroids.”

Diagnosis can be made via genetic testing, but the study authors note that it “is not routinely offered on standard workup for myeloid neoplasms or immune dysregulation diagnostic panels.”

As for treatment, Dr. Beck said the disease “can be partially controlled by multiple different anticytokine therapies or biologics. However, in most cases, patients still need additional steroids and/or disease-modifying antirheumatic agents [DMARDs]. In addition, bone marrow transplantation has shown signs of being a highly effective therapy.”

The study authors say more research is needed to understand the disease’s prevalence in more diverse populations.

In an interview, Matthew J. Koster, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who’s studied the disease but didn’t take part in this research project, said the findings are valid and “highly important.

“The findings of this study highlight what many academic and quaternary referral centers were wondering: Is VEXAS really more common than we think, with patients hiding in plain sight? The answer is yes,” he said. “Currently, there are less than 400 cases reported in the literature of VEXAS, but large centers are diagnosing this condition with some frequency. For example, at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, we diagnose on average one new patient with VEXAS every 7-14 days and have diagnosed 60 in the past 18 months. A national collaborative group in France has diagnosed approximately 250 patients over that same time frame when pooling patients nationwide.”

The prevalence is high enough, he said, that “clinicians should consider that some of the patients with diseases that are not responding to treatment may in fact have VEXAS rather than ‘refractory’ relapsing polychondritis or ‘recalcitrant’ rheumatoid arthritis, etc.”

The National Institute of Health funded the study. Dr. Beck, the other authors, and Dr. Koster report no disclosures.

A recently discovered inflammatory disease known as VEXAS syndrome is more common, variable, and dangerous than previously understood, according to results of a retrospective observational study of a large health care system database. The findings, published in JAMA, found that it struck 1 in 4,269 men over the age of 50 in a largely White population and caused a wide variety of symptoms.

“The disease is quite severe,” study lead author David Beck, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at NYU Langone Health, said in an interview. Patients with the condition “have a variety of clinical symptoms affecting different parts of the body and are being managed by different medical specialties.”

Dr. Beck and colleagues first described VEXAS (vacuoles, E1-ubiquitin-activating enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic) syndrome in 2020. They linked it to mutations in the UBA1 (ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1) gene. The enzyme initiates a process that identifies misfolded proteins as targets for degradation.

“VEXAS syndrome is characterized by anemia and inflammation in the skin, lungs, cartilage, and joints,” Dr. Beck said. “These symptoms are frequently mistaken for other rheumatic or hematologic diseases. However, this syndrome has a different cause, is treated differently, requires additional monitoring, and can be far more severe.”

According to him, hundreds of people have been diagnosed with the disease in the short time since it was defined. The disease is believed to be fatal in some cases. A previous report found that the median survival was 9 years among patients with a certain variant; that was significantly less than patients with two other variants.

For the new study, researchers searched for UBA1 variants in genetic data from 163,096 subjects (mean age, 52.8 years; 94% White, 61% women) who took part in the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative. The 1996-2022 data comes from patients at 10 Pennsylvania hospitals.

Eleven people (9 males, 2 females) had likely UBA1 variants, and all had anemia. The cases accounted for 1 in 13,591 unrelated people (95% confidence interval, 1:7,775-1:23,758), 1 in 4,269 men older than 50 years (95% CI, 1:2,319-1:7,859), and 1 in 26,238 women older than 50 years (95% CI, 1:7,196-1:147,669).

Other common findings included macrocytosis (91%), skin problems (73%), and pulmonary disease (91%). Ten patients (91%) required transfusions.

Five of the 11 subjects didn’t meet the previously defined criteria for VEXAS syndrome. None had been diagnosed with the condition, which is not surprising considering that it hadn’t been discovered and described until recently.

Just over half of the patients – 55% – had a clinical diagnosis that was previously linked to VEXAS syndrome. “This means that slightly less than half of the patients with VEXAS syndrome had no clear associated clinical diagnosis,” Dr. Beck said. “The lack of associated clinical diagnoses may be due to the variety of nonspecific clinical characteristics that span different subspecialities in VEXAS syndrome. VEXAS syndrome represents an example of a multisystem disease where patients and their symptoms may get lost in the shuffle.”

In the future, “professionals should look out for patients with unexplained inflammation – and some combination of hematologic, rheumatologic, pulmonary, and dermatologic clinical manifestations – that either don’t carry a clinical diagnosis or don’t respond to first-line therapies,” Dr. Beck said. “These patients will also frequently be anemic, have low platelet counts, elevated markers of inflammation in the blood, and be dependent on corticosteroids.”

Diagnosis can be made via genetic testing, but the study authors note that it “is not routinely offered on standard workup for myeloid neoplasms or immune dysregulation diagnostic panels.”

As for treatment, Dr. Beck said the disease “can be partially controlled by multiple different anticytokine therapies or biologics. However, in most cases, patients still need additional steroids and/or disease-modifying antirheumatic agents [DMARDs]. In addition, bone marrow transplantation has shown signs of being a highly effective therapy.”

The study authors say more research is needed to understand the disease’s prevalence in more diverse populations.

In an interview, Matthew J. Koster, MD, a rheumatologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who’s studied the disease but didn’t take part in this research project, said the findings are valid and “highly important.

“The findings of this study highlight what many academic and quaternary referral centers were wondering: Is VEXAS really more common than we think, with patients hiding in plain sight? The answer is yes,” he said. “Currently, there are less than 400 cases reported in the literature of VEXAS, but large centers are diagnosing this condition with some frequency. For example, at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, we diagnose on average one new patient with VEXAS every 7-14 days and have diagnosed 60 in the past 18 months. A national collaborative group in France has diagnosed approximately 250 patients over that same time frame when pooling patients nationwide.”

The prevalence is high enough, he said, that “clinicians should consider that some of the patients with diseases that are not responding to treatment may in fact have VEXAS rather than ‘refractory’ relapsing polychondritis or ‘recalcitrant’ rheumatoid arthritis, etc.”

The National Institute of Health funded the study. Dr. Beck, the other authors, and Dr. Koster report no disclosures.

Considerable advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) methodologies have led to the emergence of promising tools in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Computer vision is an application of AI/ML that has been successfully applied for the computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of colon polyps and numerous other conditions encountered during GI endoscopy. Outside of computer vision, a wide variety of other AI applications have been applied to gastroenterology, ranging from natural language processing (NLP) to optimize clinical documentation and endoscopy quality reporting to ML techniques that predict disease severity/treatment response and augment clinical decision-making. This article focuses on opportunities for AI applications in colonoscopy, reviews the existing data, describes the challenges limiting widespread adoption, and explores future directions.

In the United States, colonoscopy is the standard for colon cancer screening and prevention; however, precancerous polyps can be missed for various reasons, ranging from subtle surface appearance of the polyp or location behind a colonic fold to operator-dependent reasons such as inadequate mucosal inspection. Though clinical practice guidelines have set adenoma detection rate (ADR) thresholds at 20% for women and 30% for men, studies have shown a 4- to 10-fold variation in ADR among physicians in clinical practice settings^,1 with an estimated adenoma miss rate (AMR) of 25% and a false-negative colonoscopy rate of 12%.² Variability in adenoma detection affects the risk of interval colorectal cancer post colonoscopy.^3,4

AI provides an opportunity for mitigating this risk. Advances in deep learning and computer vision have led to the development of CADe systems that automatically detect polyps in real time during colonoscopy, resulting in reduced adenoma miss rates (Table 1). In addition to polyp detection, deep-learning technologies are also being used in CADx systems for polyp diagnosis and characterization of malignancy risk. This could aid therapeutic decision-making: Unnecessary resection or histopathologic analysis could be obviated for benign hyperplastic polyps. On the other end of the polyp spectrum, an AI tool that could predict the presence or absence of submucosal invasion could be a powerful tool when evaluating early colon cancers for consideration of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. surgery. Examples of CADe polyp detection and CADx polyp characterization are shown in Figure 1.

Other potential computer vision applications that may improve colonoscopy quality include tools that help measure adequacy of mucosal exposure, segmental inspection time, and a variety of other parameters associated with polyp detection performance. These are promising areas for future research. Beyond improving colonoscopy technique, natural language processing tools already are being used to optimize clinical documentation as well as extract information from colonoscopy and pathology reports that can facilitate reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics such as ADR, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and bowel preparation adequacy. AI-powered analytics may help unlock large-scale reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics on a health-systems level⁵ or population-level,⁶ helping to ensure optimal performance and identifying avenues for colonoscopy quality improvement.

In comparison, the data landscape for CADx is nascent and currently limited to several retrospective studies dating back to 2009 and a few prospective studies that have shown promising results.^10,11 There is an expectation that integrated CADx also may support the adoption of “resect and discard” or “diagnose and leave” strategies for low-risk polyps. About two-thirds of polyps identified on average-risk screening colonoscopies are diminutive polyps (less than 5 mm in size), which rarely have advanced histologic features (about 0.5%) and are sometimes non-neoplastic (30%). Malignancy risk is even lower in the distal colon.¹² As routine histopathologic assessment of such polyps is mostly of limited clinical utility and comes with added pathology costs, CADx technologies may offer a more cost-effective approach where polyps that are characterized in real-time as low-risk adenomas or non-neoplastic are “resected and discarded” or “left in” respectively. In 2011, prior to the development of current AI tools, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy set performance thresholds for technologies supporting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. The ASGE recommended 90% histopathologic concordance for “resect and discard” tools and 90% negative predictive value for adenomatous histology for “diagnose and leave,” tools.¹³ Narrow-band imaging (NBI), for example, has been shown to meet these benchmarks^14,15 with a modeling study suggesting that implementing “resect and discard” strategies with such tools could result in annual savings of $33 million without adversely affecting efficacy, although practical adoption has been limited.¹⁶ More recent work has directly explored the feasibility of leveraging CADx to support “leave-in-situ” and “resect-and-discard” strategies.¹⁷

Similarly, while CADe use in colonoscopy is associated with additional up-front costs, a modeling study suggests that its associated gains in ADR (as detailed in Table 1) make it a cost-saving strategy for colorectal cancer prevention in the long term.¹⁸ There is still uncertainty on whether the incremental CADe-associated gains in adenoma detection will necessarily translate to significant reductions in interval colorectal cancer risk, particularly for endoscopists who are already high-performing polyp detectors. A recent study suggests that, although higher ADRs were associated with lower rates of interval colorectal cancer, the gains in interval colorectal cancer risk reduction appeared to level off with ADRs above 35%-40% (this finding may be limited by statistical power).¹⁹ Further, most of the data from CADe trials suggest that gains in adenoma detection are not driven by increased detection of advanced lesions with high malignancy risk but by small polyps with long latency periods of about 5-10 years, which may not significantly alter interval cancer risk. It remains to be determined whether adoption of CADe will have an impact on hard outcomes, most importantly interval colorectal cancer risk, or merely result in increased resource utilization without moving the needle on colorectal cancer prevention. To answer this question, the OperA study – a large-scale randomized clinical trial of 200,000 patients across 18 centers from 13 countries – was launched in 2022. It will investigate the effect of colonoscopy with CADe on a number of critical measures, including long-term interval colon cancer risk.²⁰

Despite commercial availability of regulatory-approved CADe systems and data supporting use for adenoma detection in colonoscopy, mainstream adoption in clinical practice has been sluggish. Physician survey studies have shown that, although there is considerable interest in integrating CADe into clinical practice, there are concerns about access, cost and reimbursement, integration into clinical work-flow, increased procedural times, over-reliance on AI, and algorithmic bias leading to errors.^21,22 In addition, without mandatory requirements for ADR reporting or clinical practice guideline recommendations for CADe use, these systems may not be perceived as valuable or ready for prime time even though the evidence suggests otherwise.^23,24 For CADe systems to see widespread adoption in clinical practice, it is important that future research studies rigorously investigate and characterize these potential barriers to better inform strategies to address AI hesitancy and implementation challenges. Such efforts can provide an integration framework for future AI applications in gastroenterology beyond colonoscopy, such as CADe of esophageal and gastric premalignant lesions in upper endoscopy, CADx for pancreatic cysts and liver lesions on imaging, NLP tools to optimizing efficient clinical documentation and reporting, and many others.

Dr. Uche-Anya is in the division of gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Berzin is with the Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Berzin is a consultant for Wision AI, Medtronic, Magentiq Eye, RSIP Vision, and Docbot.

Corresponding Author: Eugenia Uche-Anya eucheanya@mgh.harvard.edu Twitter: @UcheAnyaMD @tberzin

References

1. Corley DA et al. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 2011;74(3):656-65. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.017.

2. Zhao S et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 05 2019;156(6):1661-74.e11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260.

3. Kaminski MF et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. May 13 2010;362(19):1795-803. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.

4. Corley DA et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. Apr 03 2014;370(14):1298-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.

5. Laique SN et al. Application of optical character recognition with natural language processing for large-scale quality metric data extraction in colonoscopy reports. Gastrointest Endosc. 03 2021;93(3):750-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.038.

6. Tinmouth J et al. Validation of a natural language processing algorithm to identify adenomas and measure adenoma detection rates across a health system: a population-level study. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 14 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.07.009.

7. Glissen Brown JR et al. Deep learning computer-aided polyp detection reduces adenoma miss rate: A United States multi-center randomized tandem colonoscopy study (CADeT-CS Trial). Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 07 2022;20(7):1499-1507.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.09.009.

8. Wallace MB et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 07 2022;163(1):295-304.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.007.

9. Hassan C et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 01 2021;93(1):77-85.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.059.

10. Glissen Brown JR and Berzin TM. Adoption of new technologies: Artificial intelligence. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. Oct 2021;31(4):743-58. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2021.05.010.

11. Larsen SLV and Mori Y. Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A review on the current status. DEN open. Apr 2022;2(1):e109. doi: 10.1002/deo2.109.

12. Gupta N et al. Prevalence of advanced histological features in diminutive and small colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. May 2012;75(5):1022-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.020.

13. Rex DK et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2011;73(3):419-22. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.023.

14. Abu Dayyeh BK et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2015;81(3):502.e1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.022.

15. Mori Y et al. Real-time use of artificial intelligence in identification of diminutive polyps during colonoscopy: A prospective study. Ann Intern Med. Sep 18 2018;169(6):357-66. doi: 10.7326/M18-0249.

16. Hassan C et al.. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Oct 2010;8(10):865-9, 869.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018.

17. Hassan C et al. Artificial intelligence allows leaving-in-situ colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Nov 2022;20(11):2505-13.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.04.045.

18. Areia M et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study. Lancet Digit Health. 06 2022;4(6):e436-44. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5.

19. Schottinger JE et al. Association of physician adenoma detection rates with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2022 Jun 7;327(21):2114-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6644.

20. Oslo Uo. Optimising colorectal cancer prevention through personalised treatment with artificial intelligence. 2022.

21. Wadhwa V et al. Physician sentiment toward artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopic practice: a survey of US gastroenterologists. Endosc Int Open. Oct 2020;8(10):E1379-84. doi: 10.1055/a-1223-1926.

22. Kader R et al. Survey on the perceptions of UK gastroenterologists and endoscopists to artificial intelligence. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2022;13(5):423-9. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-101994.

23. Rex DKet al. Artificial intelligence improves detection at colonoscopy: Why aren’t we all already using it? Gastroenterology. 07 2022;163(1):35-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.04.042.

24. Ahmad OF et al. Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A modified Delphi method. Endoscopy. 09 2021;53(9):893-901. doi: 10.1055/a-1306-7590

Considerable advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) methodologies have led to the emergence of promising tools in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Computer vision is an application of AI/ML that has been successfully applied for the computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of colon polyps and numerous other conditions encountered during GI endoscopy. Outside of computer vision, a wide variety of other AI applications have been applied to gastroenterology, ranging from natural language processing (NLP) to optimize clinical documentation and endoscopy quality reporting to ML techniques that predict disease severity/treatment response and augment clinical decision-making. This article focuses on opportunities for AI applications in colonoscopy, reviews the existing data, describes the challenges limiting widespread adoption, and explores future directions.

In the United States, colonoscopy is the standard for colon cancer screening and prevention; however, precancerous polyps can be missed for various reasons, ranging from subtle surface appearance of the polyp or location behind a colonic fold to operator-dependent reasons such as inadequate mucosal inspection. Though clinical practice guidelines have set adenoma detection rate (ADR) thresholds at 20% for women and 30% for men, studies have shown a 4- to 10-fold variation in ADR among physicians in clinical practice settings^,1 with an estimated adenoma miss rate (AMR) of 25% and a false-negative colonoscopy rate of 12%.² Variability in adenoma detection affects the risk of interval colorectal cancer post colonoscopy.^3,4

AI provides an opportunity for mitigating this risk. Advances in deep learning and computer vision have led to the development of CADe systems that automatically detect polyps in real time during colonoscopy, resulting in reduced adenoma miss rates (Table 1). In addition to polyp detection, deep-learning technologies are also being used in CADx systems for polyp diagnosis and characterization of malignancy risk. This could aid therapeutic decision-making: Unnecessary resection or histopathologic analysis could be obviated for benign hyperplastic polyps. On the other end of the polyp spectrum, an AI tool that could predict the presence or absence of submucosal invasion could be a powerful tool when evaluating early colon cancers for consideration of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. surgery. Examples of CADe polyp detection and CADx polyp characterization are shown in Figure 1.

Other potential computer vision applications that may improve colonoscopy quality include tools that help measure adequacy of mucosal exposure, segmental inspection time, and a variety of other parameters associated with polyp detection performance. These are promising areas for future research. Beyond improving colonoscopy technique, natural language processing tools already are being used to optimize clinical documentation as well as extract information from colonoscopy and pathology reports that can facilitate reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics such as ADR, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and bowel preparation adequacy. AI-powered analytics may help unlock large-scale reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics on a health-systems level⁵ or population-level,⁶ helping to ensure optimal performance and identifying avenues for colonoscopy quality improvement.

In comparison, the data landscape for CADx is nascent and currently limited to several retrospective studies dating back to 2009 and a few prospective studies that have shown promising results.^10,11 There is an expectation that integrated CADx also may support the adoption of “resect and discard” or “diagnose and leave” strategies for low-risk polyps. About two-thirds of polyps identified on average-risk screening colonoscopies are diminutive polyps (less than 5 mm in size), which rarely have advanced histologic features (about 0.5%) and are sometimes non-neoplastic (30%). Malignancy risk is even lower in the distal colon.¹² As routine histopathologic assessment of such polyps is mostly of limited clinical utility and comes with added pathology costs, CADx technologies may offer a more cost-effective approach where polyps that are characterized in real-time as low-risk adenomas or non-neoplastic are “resected and discarded” or “left in” respectively. In 2011, prior to the development of current AI tools, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy set performance thresholds for technologies supporting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. The ASGE recommended 90% histopathologic concordance for “resect and discard” tools and 90% negative predictive value for adenomatous histology for “diagnose and leave,” tools.¹³ Narrow-band imaging (NBI), for example, has been shown to meet these benchmarks^14,15 with a modeling study suggesting that implementing “resect and discard” strategies with such tools could result in annual savings of $33 million without adversely affecting efficacy, although practical adoption has been limited.¹⁶ More recent work has directly explored the feasibility of leveraging CADx to support “leave-in-situ” and “resect-and-discard” strategies.¹⁷

Similarly, while CADe use in colonoscopy is associated with additional up-front costs, a modeling study suggests that its associated gains in ADR (as detailed in Table 1) make it a cost-saving strategy for colorectal cancer prevention in the long term.¹⁸ There is still uncertainty on whether the incremental CADe-associated gains in adenoma detection will necessarily translate to significant reductions in interval colorectal cancer risk, particularly for endoscopists who are already high-performing polyp detectors. A recent study suggests that, although higher ADRs were associated with lower rates of interval colorectal cancer, the gains in interval colorectal cancer risk reduction appeared to level off with ADRs above 35%-40% (this finding may be limited by statistical power).¹⁹ Further, most of the data from CADe trials suggest that gains in adenoma detection are not driven by increased detection of advanced lesions with high malignancy risk but by small polyps with long latency periods of about 5-10 years, which may not significantly alter interval cancer risk. It remains to be determined whether adoption of CADe will have an impact on hard outcomes, most importantly interval colorectal cancer risk, or merely result in increased resource utilization without moving the needle on colorectal cancer prevention. To answer this question, the OperA study – a large-scale randomized clinical trial of 200,000 patients across 18 centers from 13 countries – was launched in 2022. It will investigate the effect of colonoscopy with CADe on a number of critical measures, including long-term interval colon cancer risk.²⁰

Despite commercial availability of regulatory-approved CADe systems and data supporting use for adenoma detection in colonoscopy, mainstream adoption in clinical practice has been sluggish. Physician survey studies have shown that, although there is considerable interest in integrating CADe into clinical practice, there are concerns about access, cost and reimbursement, integration into clinical work-flow, increased procedural times, over-reliance on AI, and algorithmic bias leading to errors.^21,22 In addition, without mandatory requirements for ADR reporting or clinical practice guideline recommendations for CADe use, these systems may not be perceived as valuable or ready for prime time even though the evidence suggests otherwise.^23,24 For CADe systems to see widespread adoption in clinical practice, it is important that future research studies rigorously investigate and characterize these potential barriers to better inform strategies to address AI hesitancy and implementation challenges. Such efforts can provide an integration framework for future AI applications in gastroenterology beyond colonoscopy, such as CADe of esophageal and gastric premalignant lesions in upper endoscopy, CADx for pancreatic cysts and liver lesions on imaging, NLP tools to optimizing efficient clinical documentation and reporting, and many others.

Dr. Uche-Anya is in the division of gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Berzin is with the Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Berzin is a consultant for Wision AI, Medtronic, Magentiq Eye, RSIP Vision, and Docbot.

Corresponding Author: Eugenia Uche-Anya eucheanya@mgh.harvard.edu Twitter: @UcheAnyaMD @tberzin

References

1. Corley DA et al. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 2011;74(3):656-65. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.017.

2. Zhao S et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 05 2019;156(6):1661-74.e11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260.

3. Kaminski MF et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. May 13 2010;362(19):1795-803. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.

4. Corley DA et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. Apr 03 2014;370(14):1298-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.

5. Laique SN et al. Application of optical character recognition with natural language processing for large-scale quality metric data extraction in colonoscopy reports. Gastrointest Endosc. 03 2021;93(3):750-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.038.

6. Tinmouth J et al. Validation of a natural language processing algorithm to identify adenomas and measure adenoma detection rates across a health system: a population-level study. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 14 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.07.009.

7. Glissen Brown JR et al. Deep learning computer-aided polyp detection reduces adenoma miss rate: A United States multi-center randomized tandem colonoscopy study (CADeT-CS Trial). Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 07 2022;20(7):1499-1507.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.09.009.

8. Wallace MB et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 07 2022;163(1):295-304.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.007.

9. Hassan C et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 01 2021;93(1):77-85.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.059.

10. Glissen Brown JR and Berzin TM. Adoption of new technologies: Artificial intelligence. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. Oct 2021;31(4):743-58. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2021.05.010.

11. Larsen SLV and Mori Y. Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A review on the current status. DEN open. Apr 2022;2(1):e109. doi: 10.1002/deo2.109.

12. Gupta N et al. Prevalence of advanced histological features in diminutive and small colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. May 2012;75(5):1022-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.020.

13. Rex DK et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2011;73(3):419-22. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.023.

14. Abu Dayyeh BK et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2015;81(3):502.e1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.022.

15. Mori Y et al. Real-time use of artificial intelligence in identification of diminutive polyps during colonoscopy: A prospective study. Ann Intern Med. Sep 18 2018;169(6):357-66. doi: 10.7326/M18-0249.

16. Hassan C et al.. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Oct 2010;8(10):865-9, 869.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018.

17. Hassan C et al. Artificial intelligence allows leaving-in-situ colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Nov 2022;20(11):2505-13.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.04.045.

18. Areia M et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study. Lancet Digit Health. 06 2022;4(6):e436-44. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5.

19. Schottinger JE et al. Association of physician adenoma detection rates with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2022 Jun 7;327(21):2114-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6644.

20. Oslo Uo. Optimising colorectal cancer prevention through personalised treatment with artificial intelligence. 2022.

21. Wadhwa V et al. Physician sentiment toward artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopic practice: a survey of US gastroenterologists. Endosc Int Open. Oct 2020;8(10):E1379-84. doi: 10.1055/a-1223-1926.

22. Kader R et al. Survey on the perceptions of UK gastroenterologists and endoscopists to artificial intelligence. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2022;13(5):423-9. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-101994.

23. Rex DKet al. Artificial intelligence improves detection at colonoscopy: Why aren’t we all already using it? Gastroenterology. 07 2022;163(1):35-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.04.042.

24. Ahmad OF et al. Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A modified Delphi method. Endoscopy. 09 2021;53(9):893-901. doi: 10.1055/a-1306-7590

Considerable advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) methodologies have led to the emergence of promising tools in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Computer vision is an application of AI/ML that has been successfully applied for the computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of colon polyps and numerous other conditions encountered during GI endoscopy. Outside of computer vision, a wide variety of other AI applications have been applied to gastroenterology, ranging from natural language processing (NLP) to optimize clinical documentation and endoscopy quality reporting to ML techniques that predict disease severity/treatment response and augment clinical decision-making. This article focuses on opportunities for AI applications in colonoscopy, reviews the existing data, describes the challenges limiting widespread adoption, and explores future directions.

In the United States, colonoscopy is the standard for colon cancer screening and prevention; however, precancerous polyps can be missed for various reasons, ranging from subtle surface appearance of the polyp or location behind a colonic fold to operator-dependent reasons such as inadequate mucosal inspection. Though clinical practice guidelines have set adenoma detection rate (ADR) thresholds at 20% for women and 30% for men, studies have shown a 4- to 10-fold variation in ADR among physicians in clinical practice settings^,1 with an estimated adenoma miss rate (AMR) of 25% and a false-negative colonoscopy rate of 12%.² Variability in adenoma detection affects the risk of interval colorectal cancer post colonoscopy.^3,4

AI provides an opportunity for mitigating this risk. Advances in deep learning and computer vision have led to the development of CADe systems that automatically detect polyps in real time during colonoscopy, resulting in reduced adenoma miss rates (Table 1). In addition to polyp detection, deep-learning technologies are also being used in CADx systems for polyp diagnosis and characterization of malignancy risk. This could aid therapeutic decision-making: Unnecessary resection or histopathologic analysis could be obviated for benign hyperplastic polyps. On the other end of the polyp spectrum, an AI tool that could predict the presence or absence of submucosal invasion could be a powerful tool when evaluating early colon cancers for consideration of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. surgery. Examples of CADe polyp detection and CADx polyp characterization are shown in Figure 1.

Other potential computer vision applications that may improve colonoscopy quality include tools that help measure adequacy of mucosal exposure, segmental inspection time, and a variety of other parameters associated with polyp detection performance. These are promising areas for future research. Beyond improving colonoscopy technique, natural language processing tools already are being used to optimize clinical documentation as well as extract information from colonoscopy and pathology reports that can facilitate reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics such as ADR, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and bowel preparation adequacy. AI-powered analytics may help unlock large-scale reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics on a health-systems level⁵ or population-level,⁶ helping to ensure optimal performance and identifying avenues for colonoscopy quality improvement.

In comparison, the data landscape for CADx is nascent and currently limited to several retrospective studies dating back to 2009 and a few prospective studies that have shown promising results.^10,11 There is an expectation that integrated CADx also may support the adoption of “resect and discard” or “diagnose and leave” strategies for low-risk polyps. About two-thirds of polyps identified on average-risk screening colonoscopies are diminutive polyps (less than 5 mm in size), which rarely have advanced histologic features (about 0.5%) and are sometimes non-neoplastic (30%). Malignancy risk is even lower in the distal colon.¹² As routine histopathologic assessment of such polyps is mostly of limited clinical utility and comes with added pathology costs, CADx technologies may offer a more cost-effective approach where polyps that are characterized in real-time as low-risk adenomas or non-neoplastic are “resected and discarded” or “left in” respectively. In 2011, prior to the development of current AI tools, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy set performance thresholds for technologies supporting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. The ASGE recommended 90% histopathologic concordance for “resect and discard” tools and 90% negative predictive value for adenomatous histology for “diagnose and leave,” tools.¹³ Narrow-band imaging (NBI), for example, has been shown to meet these benchmarks^14,15 with a modeling study suggesting that implementing “resect and discard” strategies with such tools could result in annual savings of $33 million without adversely affecting efficacy, although practical adoption has been limited.¹⁶ More recent work has directly explored the feasibility of leveraging CADx to support “leave-in-situ” and “resect-and-discard” strategies.¹⁷

Similarly, while CADe use in colonoscopy is associated with additional up-front costs, a modeling study suggests that its associated gains in ADR (as detailed in Table 1) make it a cost-saving strategy for colorectal cancer prevention in the long term.¹⁸ There is still uncertainty on whether the incremental CADe-associated gains in adenoma detection will necessarily translate to significant reductions in interval colorectal cancer risk, particularly for endoscopists who are already high-performing polyp detectors. A recent study suggests that, although higher ADRs were associated with lower rates of interval colorectal cancer, the gains in interval colorectal cancer risk reduction appeared to level off with ADRs above 35%-40% (this finding may be limited by statistical power).¹⁹ Further, most of the data from CADe trials suggest that gains in adenoma detection are not driven by increased detection of advanced lesions with high malignancy risk but by small polyps with long latency periods of about 5-10 years, which may not significantly alter interval cancer risk. It remains to be determined whether adoption of CADe will have an impact on hard outcomes, most importantly interval colorectal cancer risk, or merely result in increased resource utilization without moving the needle on colorectal cancer prevention. To answer this question, the OperA study – a large-scale randomized clinical trial of 200,000 patients across 18 centers from 13 countries – was launched in 2022. It will investigate the effect of colonoscopy with CADe on a number of critical measures, including long-term interval colon cancer risk.²⁰

Despite commercial availability of regulatory-approved CADe systems and data supporting use for adenoma detection in colonoscopy, mainstream adoption in clinical practice has been sluggish. Physician survey studies have shown that, although there is considerable interest in integrating CADe into clinical practice, there are concerns about access, cost and reimbursement, integration into clinical work-flow, increased procedural times, over-reliance on AI, and algorithmic bias leading to errors.^21,22 In addition, without mandatory requirements for ADR reporting or clinical practice guideline recommendations for CADe use, these systems may not be perceived as valuable or ready for prime time even though the evidence suggests otherwise.^23,24 For CADe systems to see widespread adoption in clinical practice, it is important that future research studies rigorously investigate and characterize these potential barriers to better inform strategies to address AI hesitancy and implementation challenges. Such efforts can provide an integration framework for future AI applications in gastroenterology beyond colonoscopy, such as CADe of esophageal and gastric premalignant lesions in upper endoscopy, CADx for pancreatic cysts and liver lesions on imaging, NLP tools to optimizing efficient clinical documentation and reporting, and many others.

Dr. Uche-Anya is in the division of gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Berzin is with the Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Berzin is a consultant for Wision AI, Medtronic, Magentiq Eye, RSIP Vision, and Docbot.

Corresponding Author: Eugenia Uche-Anya eucheanya@mgh.harvard.edu Twitter: @UcheAnyaMD @tberzin

References

1. Corley DA et al. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 2011;74(3):656-65. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.017.

2. Zhao S et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 05 2019;156(6):1661-74.e11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260.

3. Kaminski MF et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. May 13 2010;362(19):1795-803. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.

4. Corley DA et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. Apr 03 2014;370(14):1298-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.

5. Laique SN et al. Application of optical character recognition with natural language processing for large-scale quality metric data extraction in colonoscopy reports. Gastrointest Endosc. 03 2021;93(3):750-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.038.

6. Tinmouth J et al. Validation of a natural language processing algorithm to identify adenomas and measure adenoma detection rates across a health system: a population-level study. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 14 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.07.009.

7. Glissen Brown JR et al. Deep learning computer-aided polyp detection reduces adenoma miss rate: A United States multi-center randomized tandem colonoscopy study (CADeT-CS Trial). Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 07 2022;20(7):1499-1507.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.09.009.

8. Wallace MB et al. Impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate of colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 07 2022;163(1):295-304.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.007.

9. Hassan C et al. Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 01 2021;93(1):77-85.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.059.

10. Glissen Brown JR and Berzin TM. Adoption of new technologies: Artificial intelligence. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. Oct 2021;31(4):743-58. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2021.05.010.

11. Larsen SLV and Mori Y. Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A review on the current status. DEN open. Apr 2022;2(1):e109. doi: 10.1002/deo2.109.

12. Gupta N et al. Prevalence of advanced histological features in diminutive and small colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. May 2012;75(5):1022-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.020.

13. Rex DK et al. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2011;73(3):419-22. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.023.

14. Abu Dayyeh BK et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE PIVI thresholds for adopting real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 2015;81(3):502.e1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.022.

15. Mori Y et al. Real-time use of artificial intelligence in identification of diminutive polyps during colonoscopy: A prospective study. Ann Intern Med. Sep 18 2018;169(6):357-66. doi: 10.7326/M18-0249.

16. Hassan C et al.. A resect and discard strategy would improve cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Oct 2010;8(10):865-9, 869.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2010.05.018.

17. Hassan C et al. Artificial intelligence allows leaving-in-situ colorectal polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. Nov 2022;20(11):2505-13.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.04.045.

18. Areia M et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence for screening colonoscopy: a modelling study. Lancet Digit Health. 06 2022;4(6):e436-44. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5.

19. Schottinger JE et al. Association of physician adenoma detection rates with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2022 Jun 7;327(21):2114-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.6644.

20. Oslo Uo. Optimising colorectal cancer prevention through personalised treatment with artificial intelligence. 2022.

21. Wadhwa V et al. Physician sentiment toward artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopic practice: a survey of US gastroenterologists. Endosc Int Open. Oct 2020;8(10):E1379-84. doi: 10.1055/a-1223-1926.

22. Kader R et al. Survey on the perceptions of UK gastroenterologists and endoscopists to artificial intelligence. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2022;13(5):423-9. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2021-101994.

23. Rex DKet al. Artificial intelligence improves detection at colonoscopy: Why aren’t we all already using it? Gastroenterology. 07 2022;163(1):35-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.04.042.

24. Ahmad OF et al. Establishing key research questions for the implementation of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: A modified Delphi method. Endoscopy. 09 2021;53(9):893-901. doi: 10.1055/a-1306-7590