The FDA has granted Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test premarket approval (PMA) to help detect prostate cancer in men aged ≥ 50 years with elevated PSA levels.

IsoPSA is a blood assay that detects variations of the PSA protein that signal a higher likelihood of high-grade tumors. It is one of several biomarker tests included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer.

Cleveland Diagnostics noted that 75% of prostate biopsies are negative for high-grade disease. IsoPSA and similar tests aim to help identify men who need a biopsy while allowing others avoid an unnecessary procedure.

IsoPSA has been available since 2020 under the FDA's Laboratory-Developed Test rubric, meaning that blood samples had to be shipped for analysis to Cleveland Diagnostics' lab. With the PMA, testing can now be done at CLIA-certified labs across the country.

The company expects the approval should increase access to IsoPSA and reduce turnaround time. "We remain focused on executing our commercial strategy and expanding access to IsoPSA," company President and CEO Arnon Chait, PhD, said in a press release.

The approval was based, in part, on a prospective validation study of 888 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. IsoPSA demonstrated an AUC of 0.783 for high-grade tumors, with a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 45.5%. In a real-world clinical utility study with 900 patients, IsoPSA testing led to a 55% decrease in biopsy recommendations.

The test is covered by Medicare and a growing number of commercial payers, Cleveland Diagnostics said.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master's degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape Medical News. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellow. Email: aotto@mdedge.com.

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

The FDA has granted Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test premarket approval (PMA) to help detect prostate cancer in men aged ≥ 50 years with elevated PSA levels.

IsoPSA is a blood assay that detects variations of the PSA protein that signal a higher likelihood of high-grade tumors. It is one of several biomarker tests included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer.

Cleveland Diagnostics noted that 75% of prostate biopsies are negative for high-grade disease. IsoPSA and similar tests aim to help identify men who need a biopsy while allowing others avoid an unnecessary procedure.

IsoPSA has been available since 2020 under the FDA's Laboratory-Developed Test rubric, meaning that blood samples had to be shipped for analysis to Cleveland Diagnostics' lab. With the PMA, testing can now be done at CLIA-certified labs across the country.

The company expects the approval should increase access to IsoPSA and reduce turnaround time. "We remain focused on executing our commercial strategy and expanding access to IsoPSA," company President and CEO Arnon Chait, PhD, said in a press release.

The approval was based, in part, on a prospective validation study of 888 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. IsoPSA demonstrated an AUC of 0.783 for high-grade tumors, with a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 45.5%. In a real-world clinical utility study with 900 patients, IsoPSA testing led to a 55% decrease in biopsy recommendations.

The test is covered by Medicare and a growing number of commercial payers, Cleveland Diagnostics said.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master's degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape Medical News. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellow. Email: aotto@mdedge.com.

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

The FDA has granted Cleveland Diagnostics' IsoPSA test premarket approval (PMA) to help detect prostate cancer in men aged ≥ 50 years with elevated PSA levels.

IsoPSA is a blood assay that detects variations of the PSA protein that signal a higher likelihood of high-grade tumors. It is one of several biomarker tests included in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines on early detection of prostate cancer.

Cleveland Diagnostics noted that 75% of prostate biopsies are negative for high-grade disease. IsoPSA and similar tests aim to help identify men who need a biopsy while allowing others avoid an unnecessary procedure.

IsoPSA has been available since 2020 under the FDA's Laboratory-Developed Test rubric, meaning that blood samples had to be shipped for analysis to Cleveland Diagnostics' lab. With the PMA, testing can now be done at CLIA-certified labs across the country.

The company expects the approval should increase access to IsoPSA and reduce turnaround time. "We remain focused on executing our commercial strategy and expanding access to IsoPSA," company President and CEO Arnon Chait, PhD, said in a press release.

The approval was based, in part, on a prospective validation study of 888 men scheduled for prostate biopsy. IsoPSA demonstrated an AUC of 0.783 for high-grade tumors, with a sensitivity of 90.2% and a specificity of 45.5%. In a real-world clinical utility study with 900 patients, IsoPSA testing led to a 55% decrease in biopsy recommendations.

The test is covered by Medicare and a growing number of commercial payers, Cleveland Diagnostics said.

M. Alexander Otto is a physician assistant with a master's degree in medical science and a journalism degree from Newhouse. He is an award-winning medical journalist who worked for several major news outlets before joining Medscape Medical News. Alex is also an MIT Knight Science Journalism Fellow. Email: aotto@mdedge.com.

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

PHOENIX — Patients treated for cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) who develop the drugs’ known side effects of diarrhea and colitis experience increased risk of adenomas in the colon — potentially compounding their cancer burden to include a risk for colon cancer, new research showed.

“The cancer population is already at a higher baseline adenoma risk, and our findings show that ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis compounds this,” said first author Tanvi Gupta, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, in presenting the findings at American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

“The study supports a risk-stratified approach to surveillance colonoscopy perhaps within 1 year of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis, or earlier if risk factors present,” she said.

ICIs, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, have emerged as highly effective front-line treatments for various cancers, however, diarrhea and colitis are among their most notorious off-target adverse effects, believed to be caused by excessive inflammatory activity from the therapy.

Interestingly, prolonged courses of colitis of more than 3 months have in fact been associated with improved long-term outcomes and survival related to the cancer being treated.

However, prolonged inflammation of the intestine is not without key risks, including compromised colonic mucosa, and such complications are particularly concerning considering indications that the colitis can persist for years even after ICIs are discontinued, the authors noted.

With a previous small study from the researchers at MD Anderson suggesting a higher risk for adenomas associated with ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis within 1 year of diagnosis, Gupta and colleagues investigated the effects in a larger retrospective study, enrolling 248 patients treated for cancer at MD Anderson from 2010 to 2025.

All patients had developed ICI-mediated diarrhea and/or colitis, confirmed by colonoscopy within 90 days of onset, and all underwent a subsequent colonoscopy at any time point.

The patients, who had a median age of about 63.1 years, were 57.9% men and 90.3% White individuals. Of the patients, 43.7% had been treated with either PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, whereas 42.5% received combination therapy including CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Patients’ predominant cancer types were melanoma and genitourinary malignancies. About 65% had cancer stage IV.

They were compared with a group of historical control individuals who had been treated with ICIs but did not develop diarrhea/colitis, and who had normal baseline and follow-up colonoscopies.

Overall, 71, or nearly 30% of the patients, developed adenomas on follow-up colonoscopies at least 6 months later, with more than 50% of the adenomas developing rapidly, within 7.5 months of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis onset. Rates subsequently declined over the following 6 years.

Of 210 who developed ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis and had baseline and 1-year colonoscopies, those with baseline polyps had an increased risk for detection of adenomas on follow-up endoscopy compared with those with no baseline polyps (33.9% vs 15.9%; P = .004).

However, compared with the patients who were treated with ICIs but did not develop diarrhea and colitis (n = 31), those who did develop the side effects had a higher risk of developing adenomas, even if they had no prior history of polyps (n = 139; P = .002).

Likewise, among those with active histological inflammation at baseline, the risk for adenoma development was higher among those with baseline adenomas vs no adenomas (32.6% vs 15.8%; P = .014), but the risk was higher even among those with no baseline polyps but who did have active inflammation compared with those with ICI treatment but none of the gastrointestinal (GI) side effects (P = .003).

Of those who did develop adenomas, tubular adenomas were the most common types of adenomas, increasing from a median of 46.4% of polyps per patient at baseline to 87.5% at a follow-up endoscopy.

And the size of adenomas increased, with the rate of those under 5 mm at baseline of 100% dropping to 83.3% at the follow-up colonoscopy.

Overall, the findings underscore the role of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis in adenoma development.

“We know the cancer population is at a higher baseline risk of adenomas, and ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis compounds this,” Gupta said.

Importantly, the findings indicate that “histological inflammation drives mucosal injury and adenoma development, regardless of baseline polyps.”
 

Findings Raise Questions of Surveillance

Danny Issa, MD, an interventional endoscopist and assistant professor of medicine of David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, who co-moderated the study, noted that, while longer-term studies are needed, “it’s an interesting study and eye-opening for the many patients on these medications now — but we do need more data.”

“The key question raised is are these patients at a higher risk for colon cancer? It’s possible, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

Further commenting, session co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Paramus, New Jersey, noted the alarming context of ICIs already being used for an existing cancer in the first place.

“So they have one type of cancer and now these patients may be at a higher risk for getting adenomas linked to colon cancer, and so an important question is how often to follow-up on these patients,” she said.

The study’s senior author, Yinghong Wang, MD, PhD, a professor and director of the Oncology-GI Toxicity program at MD Anderson, noted that at MD Anderson, “we routinely offer the first surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after the index ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis.”

“The following surveillance interval will be based on the finding of this first surveillance colonoscopy,” she told GI & Hepatology News.

Wang recommended that others treating ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis should follow suit, “given the higher incidence and rapid development of colonic adenomas during this time frame.”

Gupta, Wang, and Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report. Issa reported relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Patients treated for cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) who develop the drugs’ known side effects of diarrhea and colitis experience increased risk of adenomas in the colon — potentially compounding their cancer burden to include a risk for colon cancer, new research showed.

“The cancer population is already at a higher baseline adenoma risk, and our findings show that ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis compounds this,” said first author Tanvi Gupta, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, in presenting the findings at American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

“The study supports a risk-stratified approach to surveillance colonoscopy perhaps within 1 year of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis, or earlier if risk factors present,” she said.

ICIs, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, have emerged as highly effective front-line treatments for various cancers, however, diarrhea and colitis are among their most notorious off-target adverse effects, believed to be caused by excessive inflammatory activity from the therapy.

Interestingly, prolonged courses of colitis of more than 3 months have in fact been associated with improved long-term outcomes and survival related to the cancer being treated.

However, prolonged inflammation of the intestine is not without key risks, including compromised colonic mucosa, and such complications are particularly concerning considering indications that the colitis can persist for years even after ICIs are discontinued, the authors noted.

With a previous small study from the researchers at MD Anderson suggesting a higher risk for adenomas associated with ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis within 1 year of diagnosis, Gupta and colleagues investigated the effects in a larger retrospective study, enrolling 248 patients treated for cancer at MD Anderson from 2010 to 2025.

All patients had developed ICI-mediated diarrhea and/or colitis, confirmed by colonoscopy within 90 days of onset, and all underwent a subsequent colonoscopy at any time point.

The patients, who had a median age of about 63.1 years, were 57.9% men and 90.3% White individuals. Of the patients, 43.7% had been treated with either PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, whereas 42.5% received combination therapy including CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Patients’ predominant cancer types were melanoma and genitourinary malignancies. About 65% had cancer stage IV.

They were compared with a group of historical control individuals who had been treated with ICIs but did not develop diarrhea/colitis, and who had normal baseline and follow-up colonoscopies.

Overall, 71, or nearly 30% of the patients, developed adenomas on follow-up colonoscopies at least 6 months later, with more than 50% of the adenomas developing rapidly, within 7.5 months of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis onset. Rates subsequently declined over the following 6 years.

Of 210 who developed ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis and had baseline and 1-year colonoscopies, those with baseline polyps had an increased risk for detection of adenomas on follow-up endoscopy compared with those with no baseline polyps (33.9% vs 15.9%; P = .004).

However, compared with the patients who were treated with ICIs but did not develop diarrhea and colitis (n = 31), those who did develop the side effects had a higher risk of developing adenomas, even if they had no prior history of polyps (n = 139; P = .002).

Likewise, among those with active histological inflammation at baseline, the risk for adenoma development was higher among those with baseline adenomas vs no adenomas (32.6% vs 15.8%; P = .014), but the risk was higher even among those with no baseline polyps but who did have active inflammation compared with those with ICI treatment but none of the gastrointestinal (GI) side effects (P = .003).

Of those who did develop adenomas, tubular adenomas were the most common types of adenomas, increasing from a median of 46.4% of polyps per patient at baseline to 87.5% at a follow-up endoscopy.

And the size of adenomas increased, with the rate of those under 5 mm at baseline of 100% dropping to 83.3% at the follow-up colonoscopy.

Overall, the findings underscore the role of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis in adenoma development.

“We know the cancer population is at a higher baseline risk of adenomas, and ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis compounds this,” Gupta said.

Importantly, the findings indicate that “histological inflammation drives mucosal injury and adenoma development, regardless of baseline polyps.”
 

Findings Raise Questions of Surveillance

Danny Issa, MD, an interventional endoscopist and assistant professor of medicine of David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, who co-moderated the study, noted that, while longer-term studies are needed, “it’s an interesting study and eye-opening for the many patients on these medications now — but we do need more data.”

“The key question raised is are these patients at a higher risk for colon cancer? It’s possible, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

Further commenting, session co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Paramus, New Jersey, noted the alarming context of ICIs already being used for an existing cancer in the first place.

“So they have one type of cancer and now these patients may be at a higher risk for getting adenomas linked to colon cancer, and so an important question is how often to follow-up on these patients,” she said.

The study’s senior author, Yinghong Wang, MD, PhD, a professor and director of the Oncology-GI Toxicity program at MD Anderson, noted that at MD Anderson, “we routinely offer the first surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after the index ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis.”

“The following surveillance interval will be based on the finding of this first surveillance colonoscopy,” she told GI & Hepatology News.

Wang recommended that others treating ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis should follow suit, “given the higher incidence and rapid development of colonic adenomas during this time frame.”

Gupta, Wang, and Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report. Issa reported relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Patients treated for cancer with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) who develop the drugs’ known side effects of diarrhea and colitis experience increased risk of adenomas in the colon — potentially compounding their cancer burden to include a risk for colon cancer, new research showed.

“The cancer population is already at a higher baseline adenoma risk, and our findings show that ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis compounds this,” said first author Tanvi Gupta, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, in presenting the findings at American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

“The study supports a risk-stratified approach to surveillance colonoscopy perhaps within 1 year of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis, or earlier if risk factors present,” she said.

ICIs, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, have emerged as highly effective front-line treatments for various cancers, however, diarrhea and colitis are among their most notorious off-target adverse effects, believed to be caused by excessive inflammatory activity from the therapy.

Interestingly, prolonged courses of colitis of more than 3 months have in fact been associated with improved long-term outcomes and survival related to the cancer being treated.

However, prolonged inflammation of the intestine is not without key risks, including compromised colonic mucosa, and such complications are particularly concerning considering indications that the colitis can persist for years even after ICIs are discontinued, the authors noted.

With a previous small study from the researchers at MD Anderson suggesting a higher risk for adenomas associated with ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis within 1 year of diagnosis, Gupta and colleagues investigated the effects in a larger retrospective study, enrolling 248 patients treated for cancer at MD Anderson from 2010 to 2025.

All patients had developed ICI-mediated diarrhea and/or colitis, confirmed by colonoscopy within 90 days of onset, and all underwent a subsequent colonoscopy at any time point.

The patients, who had a median age of about 63.1 years, were 57.9% men and 90.3% White individuals. Of the patients, 43.7% had been treated with either PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors, whereas 42.5% received combination therapy including CTLA-4 inhibitors.

Patients’ predominant cancer types were melanoma and genitourinary malignancies. About 65% had cancer stage IV.

They were compared with a group of historical control individuals who had been treated with ICIs but did not develop diarrhea/colitis, and who had normal baseline and follow-up colonoscopies.

Overall, 71, or nearly 30% of the patients, developed adenomas on follow-up colonoscopies at least 6 months later, with more than 50% of the adenomas developing rapidly, within 7.5 months of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis onset. Rates subsequently declined over the following 6 years.

Of 210 who developed ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis and had baseline and 1-year colonoscopies, those with baseline polyps had an increased risk for detection of adenomas on follow-up endoscopy compared with those with no baseline polyps (33.9% vs 15.9%; P = .004).

However, compared with the patients who were treated with ICIs but did not develop diarrhea and colitis (n = 31), those who did develop the side effects had a higher risk of developing adenomas, even if they had no prior history of polyps (n = 139; P = .002).

Likewise, among those with active histological inflammation at baseline, the risk for adenoma development was higher among those with baseline adenomas vs no adenomas (32.6% vs 15.8%; P = .014), but the risk was higher even among those with no baseline polyps but who did have active inflammation compared with those with ICI treatment but none of the gastrointestinal (GI) side effects (P = .003).

Of those who did develop adenomas, tubular adenomas were the most common types of adenomas, increasing from a median of 46.4% of polyps per patient at baseline to 87.5% at a follow-up endoscopy.

And the size of adenomas increased, with the rate of those under 5 mm at baseline of 100% dropping to 83.3% at the follow-up colonoscopy.

Overall, the findings underscore the role of ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis in adenoma development.

“We know the cancer population is at a higher baseline risk of adenomas, and ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis compounds this,” Gupta said.

Importantly, the findings indicate that “histological inflammation drives mucosal injury and adenoma development, regardless of baseline polyps.”
 

Findings Raise Questions of Surveillance

Danny Issa, MD, an interventional endoscopist and assistant professor of medicine of David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, who co-moderated the study, noted that, while longer-term studies are needed, “it’s an interesting study and eye-opening for the many patients on these medications now — but we do need more data.”

“The key question raised is are these patients at a higher risk for colon cancer? It’s possible, and it’s important for clinicians to keep that in mind,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

Further commenting, session co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Valley Medical Group in Paramus, New Jersey, noted the alarming context of ICIs already being used for an existing cancer in the first place.

“So they have one type of cancer and now these patients may be at a higher risk for getting adenomas linked to colon cancer, and so an important question is how often to follow-up on these patients,” she said.

The study’s senior author, Yinghong Wang, MD, PhD, a professor and director of the Oncology-GI Toxicity program at MD Anderson, noted that at MD Anderson, “we routinely offer the first surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after the index ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis.”

“The following surveillance interval will be based on the finding of this first surveillance colonoscopy,” she told GI & Hepatology News.

Wang recommended that others treating ICI-mediated diarrhea and colitis should follow suit, “given the higher incidence and rapid development of colonic adenomas during this time frame.”

Gupta, Wang, and Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report. Issa reported relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of death in patients with posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE) varies dramatically by type of brain injury, with some facing twice the mortality rate as those with other forms of epilepsy, according to a new study of Veterans Health Administration data. 

Of 210,182 veterans with epilepsy followed for a median of 6 years, those who developed PTE after diffuse cerebral injury, focal cerebral injury, or skull/facial fractures had 16% to 18% higher mortality rates than veterans with nontraumatic epilepsy (NTE) the study found. Published in Neurology, the analysis was completed by Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine Medical Center, and colleagues. 

Young patients who developed PTE after extracerebral hemorrhage faced the highest risk — double the mortality rate of those with NTE.

“These numbers are striking considering that the group against which these rates are compared — other causes of epilepsy — itself suffers from a high mortality rate,” Haneef said in an interview with Federal Practitioner. “Our findings argue for risk-stratified follow-up in PTE based on the underlying TBI [traumatic brain injury] mechanism and age at epilepsy onset.”

How Common is PTE?

PTE is defined as “long-term predisposition to developing recurrent and unprovoked seizures caused by a traumatic brain injury,” according to neurologist Edilberto Amorim, MD, of University of California at San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings. “We do not fully understand why some people with a traumatic brain injury develop epilepsy and others do not, but the risk is higher with more severe types of TBI.”

PTE accounts for about 5% of all epilepsy cases, Amorim said. The study cites research linking PTE to mortality risk that’s 1.75 to 2.30 higher than in people without epilepsy. 

Haneef said the study aimed to shed light on mortality in PTE. “Although epilepsy and TBI are each linked to higher mortality, it had never been conclusively shown that PTE specifically carries higher mortality than nontraumatic epilepsy,” he said. “We set out to answer that question in a large national veterans cohort and to see whether mortality differs by the type of antecedent TBI.”

Methodology and Findings

Researchers tracked 210,182 veterans diagnosed with epilepsy from 2005 to 2022 through the end of 2024: 28,832 with PTE (mean onset age 52.6 years, 7.4% female, 74.2% White, 16.2% Black) and 181,350 with NTE (mean onset age 60.9 years, 8.5% female, 71.0% White, 21.4% Black).

Patients with PTE were defined as having had documentation of TBI within 5 years previous to receiving an epilepsy diagnosis.

Among those with NTE (median follow-up, 6.0 years), 51.1% died. In the PTE group (median follow-up, 6.4 years), 37.3% died.

After adjustment for differences in age, sex, and comorbidities, the risk of mortality in PTE was slightly higher than in NTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.02); the risk was lower for the concussive TBI subtype (aHR, 0.91, both P < .05). “The underlying injury in concussion

is likely to be less severe compared with structural TBI, which may have led to the lower relative mortality observed,” the authors wrote. 

However, risk of mortality in PTE was higher than in NTE for cases with underlying TBI subtypes of skull/facial fracture (aHR, 1.18), diffuse cerebral injury (aHR, 1.17), and focal cerebral injury (aHR, 1.16).

“These injuries are associated with greater structural brain damage and sustained neuroinflammation, which are factors linked to harder-to-treat (drug-resistant) epilepsy, which carries higher mortality,” Haneef said. “They may also coexist with extracranial trauma and medical comorbidity that compound long-term risk.”

Among various age groups, there was a notably higher risk of mortality linked to patients aged 18 to 39 years at onset with extracerebral PTE (aHR, 2.02, vs NTE): “In younger patients, extracerebral bleeds (eg, subdural, epidural, and subarachnoid) may reflect higher-energy trauma and more aggressive secondary cascades, amplifying epilepsy severity and longer lifetime exposure to risk. Mechanistic differences in hemorrhage types across ages may also contribute,” Haneef said. 

Perspective on Findings

Amorim said the new research is “very useful,” although it has limitations that are common in large database studies. “A key point that this study highlights is the variability in the impact of TBI type on mortality and the differential risk across different age groups,” he said. 

As for the higher risk in younger people, Amorim said this may be related to severity of injury: “Older patients often have TBI after falls, while younger patients are more frequently involved in traffic accidents or victims of violence,” he said

In the big picture, Amorim said, “studies like this highlight the importance of moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach in epilepsy care. Understanding the nuances of posttraumatic epilepsy—how the type of injury, age, and other factors affect outcomes—can help us personalize treatment and counseling and maybe even guide future research into preventing or mitigating epilepsy after brain injury. New methods to automate review of medical records with higher resolution, such as large language models and natural language processing, may make this type of study with large databases even more comprehensive and impactful.”

Haneef said the findings highlight the importance of recognizing PTE as a higher-risk epilepsy and prioritizing early specialty care, especially after focal/diffuse brain injury or fracture. “Screen proactively for drug resistance and fast-track definitive therapies—surgery and device-based therapies—when indicated,” Haneef said. “Management should also include optimized antiseizure therapy, comorbidity control, and safety counseling, since many deaths may be preventable with coordinated multidisciplinary care.”

Haneef added that clinicians should “pay particular attention to younger PTE patients with extracerebral hemorrhage, who showed the greatest relative mortality.”

He also noted that the US Department of Veterans Affairs has comprehensive Epilepsy Centers of Excellence across the country.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) funded the study. Haneef discloses DoD funding, and another author discloses DoD and VA funding. Other authors have no disclosures. 

Amorim discloses funding from DoD, NIH, American Heart Association, Regents of the University of California, Cures Within Reach, Zoll Foundation, and Hellman Foundation.

The risk of death in patients with posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE) varies dramatically by type of brain injury, with some facing twice the mortality rate as those with other forms of epilepsy, according to a new study of Veterans Health Administration data. 

Of 210,182 veterans with epilepsy followed for a median of 6 years, those who developed PTE after diffuse cerebral injury, focal cerebral injury, or skull/facial fractures had 16% to 18% higher mortality rates than veterans with nontraumatic epilepsy (NTE) the study found. Published in Neurology, the analysis was completed by Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine Medical Center, and colleagues. 

Young patients who developed PTE after extracerebral hemorrhage faced the highest risk — double the mortality rate of those with NTE.

“These numbers are striking considering that the group against which these rates are compared — other causes of epilepsy — itself suffers from a high mortality rate,” Haneef said in an interview with Federal Practitioner. “Our findings argue for risk-stratified follow-up in PTE based on the underlying TBI [traumatic brain injury] mechanism and age at epilepsy onset.”

How Common is PTE?

PTE is defined as “long-term predisposition to developing recurrent and unprovoked seizures caused by a traumatic brain injury,” according to neurologist Edilberto Amorim, MD, of University of California at San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings. “We do not fully understand why some people with a traumatic brain injury develop epilepsy and others do not, but the risk is higher with more severe types of TBI.”

PTE accounts for about 5% of all epilepsy cases, Amorim said. The study cites research linking PTE to mortality risk that’s 1.75 to 2.30 higher than in people without epilepsy. 

Haneef said the study aimed to shed light on mortality in PTE. “Although epilepsy and TBI are each linked to higher mortality, it had never been conclusively shown that PTE specifically carries higher mortality than nontraumatic epilepsy,” he said. “We set out to answer that question in a large national veterans cohort and to see whether mortality differs by the type of antecedent TBI.”

Methodology and Findings

Researchers tracked 210,182 veterans diagnosed with epilepsy from 2005 to 2022 through the end of 2024: 28,832 with PTE (mean onset age 52.6 years, 7.4% female, 74.2% White, 16.2% Black) and 181,350 with NTE (mean onset age 60.9 years, 8.5% female, 71.0% White, 21.4% Black).

Patients with PTE were defined as having had documentation of TBI within 5 years previous to receiving an epilepsy diagnosis.

Among those with NTE (median follow-up, 6.0 years), 51.1% died. In the PTE group (median follow-up, 6.4 years), 37.3% died.

After adjustment for differences in age, sex, and comorbidities, the risk of mortality in PTE was slightly higher than in NTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.02); the risk was lower for the concussive TBI subtype (aHR, 0.91, both P < .05). “The underlying injury in concussion

is likely to be less severe compared with structural TBI, which may have led to the lower relative mortality observed,” the authors wrote. 

However, risk of mortality in PTE was higher than in NTE for cases with underlying TBI subtypes of skull/facial fracture (aHR, 1.18), diffuse cerebral injury (aHR, 1.17), and focal cerebral injury (aHR, 1.16).

“These injuries are associated with greater structural brain damage and sustained neuroinflammation, which are factors linked to harder-to-treat (drug-resistant) epilepsy, which carries higher mortality,” Haneef said. “They may also coexist with extracranial trauma and medical comorbidity that compound long-term risk.”

Among various age groups, there was a notably higher risk of mortality linked to patients aged 18 to 39 years at onset with extracerebral PTE (aHR, 2.02, vs NTE): “In younger patients, extracerebral bleeds (eg, subdural, epidural, and subarachnoid) may reflect higher-energy trauma and more aggressive secondary cascades, amplifying epilepsy severity and longer lifetime exposure to risk. Mechanistic differences in hemorrhage types across ages may also contribute,” Haneef said. 

Perspective on Findings

Amorim said the new research is “very useful,” although it has limitations that are common in large database studies. “A key point that this study highlights is the variability in the impact of TBI type on mortality and the differential risk across different age groups,” he said. 

As for the higher risk in younger people, Amorim said this may be related to severity of injury: “Older patients often have TBI after falls, while younger patients are more frequently involved in traffic accidents or victims of violence,” he said

In the big picture, Amorim said, “studies like this highlight the importance of moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach in epilepsy care. Understanding the nuances of posttraumatic epilepsy—how the type of injury, age, and other factors affect outcomes—can help us personalize treatment and counseling and maybe even guide future research into preventing or mitigating epilepsy after brain injury. New methods to automate review of medical records with higher resolution, such as large language models and natural language processing, may make this type of study with large databases even more comprehensive and impactful.”

Haneef said the findings highlight the importance of recognizing PTE as a higher-risk epilepsy and prioritizing early specialty care, especially after focal/diffuse brain injury or fracture. “Screen proactively for drug resistance and fast-track definitive therapies—surgery and device-based therapies—when indicated,” Haneef said. “Management should also include optimized antiseizure therapy, comorbidity control, and safety counseling, since many deaths may be preventable with coordinated multidisciplinary care.”

Haneef added that clinicians should “pay particular attention to younger PTE patients with extracerebral hemorrhage, who showed the greatest relative mortality.”

He also noted that the US Department of Veterans Affairs has comprehensive Epilepsy Centers of Excellence across the country.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) funded the study. Haneef discloses DoD funding, and another author discloses DoD and VA funding. Other authors have no disclosures. 

Amorim discloses funding from DoD, NIH, American Heart Association, Regents of the University of California, Cures Within Reach, Zoll Foundation, and Hellman Foundation.

The risk of death in patients with posttraumatic epilepsy (PTE) varies dramatically by type of brain injury, with some facing twice the mortality rate as those with other forms of epilepsy, according to a new study of Veterans Health Administration data. 

Of 210,182 veterans with epilepsy followed for a median of 6 years, those who developed PTE after diffuse cerebral injury, focal cerebral injury, or skull/facial fractures had 16% to 18% higher mortality rates than veterans with nontraumatic epilepsy (NTE) the study found. Published in Neurology, the analysis was completed by Zulfi Haneef, MBBS, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine Medical Center, and colleagues. 

Young patients who developed PTE after extracerebral hemorrhage faced the highest risk — double the mortality rate of those with NTE.

“These numbers are striking considering that the group against which these rates are compared — other causes of epilepsy — itself suffers from a high mortality rate,” Haneef said in an interview with Federal Practitioner. “Our findings argue for risk-stratified follow-up in PTE based on the underlying TBI [traumatic brain injury] mechanism and age at epilepsy onset.”

How Common is PTE?

PTE is defined as “long-term predisposition to developing recurrent and unprovoked seizures caused by a traumatic brain injury,” according to neurologist Edilberto Amorim, MD, of University of California at San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences, who was not involved with the study but is familiar with its findings. “We do not fully understand why some people with a traumatic brain injury develop epilepsy and others do not, but the risk is higher with more severe types of TBI.”

PTE accounts for about 5% of all epilepsy cases, Amorim said. The study cites research linking PTE to mortality risk that’s 1.75 to 2.30 higher than in people without epilepsy. 

Haneef said the study aimed to shed light on mortality in PTE. “Although epilepsy and TBI are each linked to higher mortality, it had never been conclusively shown that PTE specifically carries higher mortality than nontraumatic epilepsy,” he said. “We set out to answer that question in a large national veterans cohort and to see whether mortality differs by the type of antecedent TBI.”

Methodology and Findings

Researchers tracked 210,182 veterans diagnosed with epilepsy from 2005 to 2022 through the end of 2024: 28,832 with PTE (mean onset age 52.6 years, 7.4% female, 74.2% White, 16.2% Black) and 181,350 with NTE (mean onset age 60.9 years, 8.5% female, 71.0% White, 21.4% Black).

Patients with PTE were defined as having had documentation of TBI within 5 years previous to receiving an epilepsy diagnosis.

Among those with NTE (median follow-up, 6.0 years), 51.1% died. In the PTE group (median follow-up, 6.4 years), 37.3% died.

After adjustment for differences in age, sex, and comorbidities, the risk of mortality in PTE was slightly higher than in NTE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.02); the risk was lower for the concussive TBI subtype (aHR, 0.91, both P < .05). “The underlying injury in concussion

is likely to be less severe compared with structural TBI, which may have led to the lower relative mortality observed,” the authors wrote. 

However, risk of mortality in PTE was higher than in NTE for cases with underlying TBI subtypes of skull/facial fracture (aHR, 1.18), diffuse cerebral injury (aHR, 1.17), and focal cerebral injury (aHR, 1.16).

“These injuries are associated with greater structural brain damage and sustained neuroinflammation, which are factors linked to harder-to-treat (drug-resistant) epilepsy, which carries higher mortality,” Haneef said. “They may also coexist with extracranial trauma and medical comorbidity that compound long-term risk.”

Among various age groups, there was a notably higher risk of mortality linked to patients aged 18 to 39 years at onset with extracerebral PTE (aHR, 2.02, vs NTE): “In younger patients, extracerebral bleeds (eg, subdural, epidural, and subarachnoid) may reflect higher-energy trauma and more aggressive secondary cascades, amplifying epilepsy severity and longer lifetime exposure to risk. Mechanistic differences in hemorrhage types across ages may also contribute,” Haneef said. 

Perspective on Findings

Amorim said the new research is “very useful,” although it has limitations that are common in large database studies. “A key point that this study highlights is the variability in the impact of TBI type on mortality and the differential risk across different age groups,” he said. 

As for the higher risk in younger people, Amorim said this may be related to severity of injury: “Older patients often have TBI after falls, while younger patients are more frequently involved in traffic accidents or victims of violence,” he said

In the big picture, Amorim said, “studies like this highlight the importance of moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach in epilepsy care. Understanding the nuances of posttraumatic epilepsy—how the type of injury, age, and other factors affect outcomes—can help us personalize treatment and counseling and maybe even guide future research into preventing or mitigating epilepsy after brain injury. New methods to automate review of medical records with higher resolution, such as large language models and natural language processing, may make this type of study with large databases even more comprehensive and impactful.”

Haneef said the findings highlight the importance of recognizing PTE as a higher-risk epilepsy and prioritizing early specialty care, especially after focal/diffuse brain injury or fracture. “Screen proactively for drug resistance and fast-track definitive therapies—surgery and device-based therapies—when indicated,” Haneef said. “Management should also include optimized antiseizure therapy, comorbidity control, and safety counseling, since many deaths may be preventable with coordinated multidisciplinary care.”

Haneef added that clinicians should “pay particular attention to younger PTE patients with extracerebral hemorrhage, who showed the greatest relative mortality.”

He also noted that the US Department of Veterans Affairs has comprehensive Epilepsy Centers of Excellence across the country.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) funded the study. Haneef discloses DoD funding, and another author discloses DoD and VA funding. Other authors have no disclosures. 

Amorim discloses funding from DoD, NIH, American Heart Association, Regents of the University of California, Cures Within Reach, Zoll Foundation, and Hellman Foundation.

After decades of successful growth, the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) model may be turning a corner, opening up opportunity for office-based endoscopy models, according to a recent practice management editorial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although office endoscopy has been an option, it hasn’t always felt practical or financially viable in the past. However, the paradigm appears to be shifting as ASC-based revenue streams show signs of stress and fail to keep pace with inflation. As healthcare regulatory and economic environments continue to change, gastroenterologists need a new model to support equity, efficiency, and growth in gastrointestinal (GI) care delivery, the authors wrote.

“Through the course of my 40-year career, I’ve been hit with a lot of changes related to regulations, insurance, and the market. You can’t stay entrenched in your old ways. You have to remain pivotable and come up with new strategic positions,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, lead author and founder of SonarMD and VOCnomics.

During his private practice career, Kosinski built one of the largest GI practices in Illinois, which had seven ASCs and is now part of one of the largest GI groups in the country. Across 30 years of experience with ASCs, Kosinski has watched the reimbursement for professional services decline, as well as for added revenue streams such as pathology and anesthesia.

Looking for a better solution, Kosinski served on the governing board for the American Gastroenterological Association as the councilor for development and growth. During the past 3 years, he has spoken with GI practices and worked with a national anesthesia company — Ambulatory Anesthesia Care — to better understand the office endoscopy setting.

“In the ’90s, all I wanted was to have an ASC because that was in vogue,” he said. “But if you look critically at what has happened to the business of outpatient endoscopy in the past 25 years, you’ll see that professional fees haven’t kept up, and trying to replace that lost revenue is a losing battle.”
 

Considering Financial Shifts

Since 2001, professional reimbursement for colonoscopies has fallen by more than 40% while ASC revenue has risen, decreasing the percentage of revenue from professional fees (from 34% to 23%) and increasing the facility component (from 44% to 60%), Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

When looking at profit, compression of professional service fees appears even greater, especially with surging costs of anesthesia care due to high demand and provider shortages. Beyond that, about a third of ASCs are owned at least partially by national entities, as of 2024, leading to even lower realization of profit.

“The profit margins have really been crushed, so what is a GI doc to do? Go where there is opportunity,” Kosinski said. “The difference between hospitals and ASCs has been compressed, so what about the office?”

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 14% increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures, including endoscopy, as well as a 7% decrease for facility-based procedures.

In several states — such as Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin — health plans are introducing programs to promote the transition of outpatient endoscopy to office settings rather than hospital-based or ASC-based settings due to costs, the authors wrote.

“The decision to start offering office-based endoscopy services was an easy one for our practice, as it provides a way for us to provide patients convenient, easy-to-access endoscopy that is high quality yet much more affordable than hospital-based settings,” said Neil Gupta, MD, managing partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The practice has used office-based endoscopy for nearly 2 years, Gupta said, performing about 5000 GI endoscopy procedures per year.

“As we all try to find better ways to provide high-quality but affordable care for patients, office-based endoscopy is a great way to help achieve those goals,” he said. “Healthcare professionals and patients should all be asking, ‘What type of site am I getting my GI endoscopy scheduled at — hospital, surgery center, or physician’s office?’”
 

Regaining Autonomy and Time

Beyond the financial dynamics, office-based endoscopy can help independent GI practices regain control of their work and time and build sustainable growth for the future, Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

Looking ahead, office-based models can also provide the agility and infrastructure to compete in value-based care models, they wrote. In turn, value-based models can create relevance and resilience in a continually changing healthcare environment.

Without the involvement of ASC managers, investors, or health system partners, physicians retain control of scheduling, clinical protocols, financial decisions, and operational workflows, the authors wrote. This could create better alignment with personal preferences, clinical judgment, and patient needs, they noted.

“GI physicians should no longer feel trapped in a hospital setting where they lack independence and influence over decision-making,” said Rock Rockett, PhD, owner and principal consultant of Rockett Healthcare Strategies, which partners with GI groups nationwide to help with development, accreditation, and payer contracting for office endoscopy.

“GI physicians should also no longer feel trapped in a ‘bad marriage’ with partners in an ASC or partners in a practice who create a difficult work environment,” he said. “The viability of office endoscopy allows them to strike out on their own or set up a new partnership on more equitable terms that are attractive for them.”

Patient safety and quality also appear to be similar or better in office-based settings, based on benchmarking data analyzed so far. Hospital transfers were lower, falls were similar, and patient experience was positive, the authors wrote.

At the same time, Kosinski and colleagues noted the difficulty in shifting to office-based models. Most practices have committed to ASCs, for instance, and adding an office-based room can be challenging. Otherwise, practices already use their available office space and don’t have extra rooms available. In that case, an office endoscopy suite may be best suited for expansion sites, allowing practices to grow into new service areas, they wrote.

“You can’t fight the market. You have to focus on what the market wants and needs,” Kosinski said. “To do that, you have to be able to pivot and change direction, looking for new ways to change your mission. This could be an option to do that.”

Kosinski, Gupta, and Rockett declared having no conflicts of interest other than their current employments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After decades of successful growth, the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) model may be turning a corner, opening up opportunity for office-based endoscopy models, according to a recent practice management editorial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although office endoscopy has been an option, it hasn’t always felt practical or financially viable in the past. However, the paradigm appears to be shifting as ASC-based revenue streams show signs of stress and fail to keep pace with inflation. As healthcare regulatory and economic environments continue to change, gastroenterologists need a new model to support equity, efficiency, and growth in gastrointestinal (GI) care delivery, the authors wrote.

“Through the course of my 40-year career, I’ve been hit with a lot of changes related to regulations, insurance, and the market. You can’t stay entrenched in your old ways. You have to remain pivotable and come up with new strategic positions,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, lead author and founder of SonarMD and VOCnomics.

During his private practice career, Kosinski built one of the largest GI practices in Illinois, which had seven ASCs and is now part of one of the largest GI groups in the country. Across 30 years of experience with ASCs, Kosinski has watched the reimbursement for professional services decline, as well as for added revenue streams such as pathology and anesthesia.

Looking for a better solution, Kosinski served on the governing board for the American Gastroenterological Association as the councilor for development and growth. During the past 3 years, he has spoken with GI practices and worked with a national anesthesia company — Ambulatory Anesthesia Care — to better understand the office endoscopy setting.

“In the ’90s, all I wanted was to have an ASC because that was in vogue,” he said. “But if you look critically at what has happened to the business of outpatient endoscopy in the past 25 years, you’ll see that professional fees haven’t kept up, and trying to replace that lost revenue is a losing battle.”
 

Considering Financial Shifts

Since 2001, professional reimbursement for colonoscopies has fallen by more than 40% while ASC revenue has risen, decreasing the percentage of revenue from professional fees (from 34% to 23%) and increasing the facility component (from 44% to 60%), Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

When looking at profit, compression of professional service fees appears even greater, especially with surging costs of anesthesia care due to high demand and provider shortages. Beyond that, about a third of ASCs are owned at least partially by national entities, as of 2024, leading to even lower realization of profit.

“The profit margins have really been crushed, so what is a GI doc to do? Go where there is opportunity,” Kosinski said. “The difference between hospitals and ASCs has been compressed, so what about the office?”

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 14% increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures, including endoscopy, as well as a 7% decrease for facility-based procedures.

In several states — such as Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin — health plans are introducing programs to promote the transition of outpatient endoscopy to office settings rather than hospital-based or ASC-based settings due to costs, the authors wrote.

“The decision to start offering office-based endoscopy services was an easy one for our practice, as it provides a way for us to provide patients convenient, easy-to-access endoscopy that is high quality yet much more affordable than hospital-based settings,” said Neil Gupta, MD, managing partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The practice has used office-based endoscopy for nearly 2 years, Gupta said, performing about 5000 GI endoscopy procedures per year.

“As we all try to find better ways to provide high-quality but affordable care for patients, office-based endoscopy is a great way to help achieve those goals,” he said. “Healthcare professionals and patients should all be asking, ‘What type of site am I getting my GI endoscopy scheduled at — hospital, surgery center, or physician’s office?’”
 

Regaining Autonomy and Time

Beyond the financial dynamics, office-based endoscopy can help independent GI practices regain control of their work and time and build sustainable growth for the future, Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

Looking ahead, office-based models can also provide the agility and infrastructure to compete in value-based care models, they wrote. In turn, value-based models can create relevance and resilience in a continually changing healthcare environment.

Without the involvement of ASC managers, investors, or health system partners, physicians retain control of scheduling, clinical protocols, financial decisions, and operational workflows, the authors wrote. This could create better alignment with personal preferences, clinical judgment, and patient needs, they noted.

“GI physicians should no longer feel trapped in a hospital setting where they lack independence and influence over decision-making,” said Rock Rockett, PhD, owner and principal consultant of Rockett Healthcare Strategies, which partners with GI groups nationwide to help with development, accreditation, and payer contracting for office endoscopy.

“GI physicians should also no longer feel trapped in a ‘bad marriage’ with partners in an ASC or partners in a practice who create a difficult work environment,” he said. “The viability of office endoscopy allows them to strike out on their own or set up a new partnership on more equitable terms that are attractive for them.”

Patient safety and quality also appear to be similar or better in office-based settings, based on benchmarking data analyzed so far. Hospital transfers were lower, falls were similar, and patient experience was positive, the authors wrote.

At the same time, Kosinski and colleagues noted the difficulty in shifting to office-based models. Most practices have committed to ASCs, for instance, and adding an office-based room can be challenging. Otherwise, practices already use their available office space and don’t have extra rooms available. In that case, an office endoscopy suite may be best suited for expansion sites, allowing practices to grow into new service areas, they wrote.

“You can’t fight the market. You have to focus on what the market wants and needs,” Kosinski said. “To do that, you have to be able to pivot and change direction, looking for new ways to change your mission. This could be an option to do that.”

Kosinski, Gupta, and Rockett declared having no conflicts of interest other than their current employments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After decades of successful growth, the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) model may be turning a corner, opening up opportunity for office-based endoscopy models, according to a recent practice management editorial published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Although office endoscopy has been an option, it hasn’t always felt practical or financially viable in the past. However, the paradigm appears to be shifting as ASC-based revenue streams show signs of stress and fail to keep pace with inflation. As healthcare regulatory and economic environments continue to change, gastroenterologists need a new model to support equity, efficiency, and growth in gastrointestinal (GI) care delivery, the authors wrote.

“Through the course of my 40-year career, I’ve been hit with a lot of changes related to regulations, insurance, and the market. You can’t stay entrenched in your old ways. You have to remain pivotable and come up with new strategic positions,” said Lawrence Kosinski, MD, AGAF, lead author and founder of SonarMD and VOCnomics.

During his private practice career, Kosinski built one of the largest GI practices in Illinois, which had seven ASCs and is now part of one of the largest GI groups in the country. Across 30 years of experience with ASCs, Kosinski has watched the reimbursement for professional services decline, as well as for added revenue streams such as pathology and anesthesia.

Looking for a better solution, Kosinski served on the governing board for the American Gastroenterological Association as the councilor for development and growth. During the past 3 years, he has spoken with GI practices and worked with a national anesthesia company — Ambulatory Anesthesia Care — to better understand the office endoscopy setting.

“In the ’90s, all I wanted was to have an ASC because that was in vogue,” he said. “But if you look critically at what has happened to the business of outpatient endoscopy in the past 25 years, you’ll see that professional fees haven’t kept up, and trying to replace that lost revenue is a losing battle.”
 

Considering Financial Shifts

Since 2001, professional reimbursement for colonoscopies has fallen by more than 40% while ASC revenue has risen, decreasing the percentage of revenue from professional fees (from 34% to 23%) and increasing the facility component (from 44% to 60%), Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

When looking at profit, compression of professional service fees appears even greater, especially with surging costs of anesthesia care due to high demand and provider shortages. Beyond that, about a third of ASCs are owned at least partially by national entities, as of 2024, leading to even lower realization of profit.

“The profit margins have really been crushed, so what is a GI doc to do? Go where there is opportunity,” Kosinski said. “The difference between hospitals and ASCs has been compressed, so what about the office?”

The proposed 2026 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes a 14% increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures, including endoscopy, as well as a 7% decrease for facility-based procedures.

In several states — such as Illinois, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin — health plans are introducing programs to promote the transition of outpatient endoscopy to office settings rather than hospital-based or ASC-based settings due to costs, the authors wrote.

“The decision to start offering office-based endoscopy services was an easy one for our practice, as it provides a way for us to provide patients convenient, easy-to-access endoscopy that is high quality yet much more affordable than hospital-based settings,” said Neil Gupta, MD, managing partner at Midwest Digestive Health & Nutrition in Des Plaines, Illinois.

The practice has used office-based endoscopy for nearly 2 years, Gupta said, performing about 5000 GI endoscopy procedures per year.

“As we all try to find better ways to provide high-quality but affordable care for patients, office-based endoscopy is a great way to help achieve those goals,” he said. “Healthcare professionals and patients should all be asking, ‘What type of site am I getting my GI endoscopy scheduled at — hospital, surgery center, or physician’s office?’”
 

Regaining Autonomy and Time

Beyond the financial dynamics, office-based endoscopy can help independent GI practices regain control of their work and time and build sustainable growth for the future, Kosinski and colleagues wrote.

Looking ahead, office-based models can also provide the agility and infrastructure to compete in value-based care models, they wrote. In turn, value-based models can create relevance and resilience in a continually changing healthcare environment.

Without the involvement of ASC managers, investors, or health system partners, physicians retain control of scheduling, clinical protocols, financial decisions, and operational workflows, the authors wrote. This could create better alignment with personal preferences, clinical judgment, and patient needs, they noted.

“GI physicians should no longer feel trapped in a hospital setting where they lack independence and influence over decision-making,” said Rock Rockett, PhD, owner and principal consultant of Rockett Healthcare Strategies, which partners with GI groups nationwide to help with development, accreditation, and payer contracting for office endoscopy.

“GI physicians should also no longer feel trapped in a ‘bad marriage’ with partners in an ASC or partners in a practice who create a difficult work environment,” he said. “The viability of office endoscopy allows them to strike out on their own or set up a new partnership on more equitable terms that are attractive for them.”

Patient safety and quality also appear to be similar or better in office-based settings, based on benchmarking data analyzed so far. Hospital transfers were lower, falls were similar, and patient experience was positive, the authors wrote.

At the same time, Kosinski and colleagues noted the difficulty in shifting to office-based models. Most practices have committed to ASCs, for instance, and adding an office-based room can be challenging. Otherwise, practices already use their available office space and don’t have extra rooms available. In that case, an office endoscopy suite may be best suited for expansion sites, allowing practices to grow into new service areas, they wrote.

“You can’t fight the market. You have to focus on what the market wants and needs,” Kosinski said. “To do that, you have to be able to pivot and change direction, looking for new ways to change your mission. This could be an option to do that.”

Kosinski, Gupta, and Rockett declared having no conflicts of interest other than their current employments.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Seladelpar, a first-in-class, selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta agonist, shows significant improvement across key pruritus outcomes in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), supporting the drug’s benefits for the large percentage of patients who may fail to improve with or become intolerant of standard PBC therapy.

“This pooled analysis demonstrated that seladelpar treatment for up to 6 months reduced pruritus to a greater extent vs placebo in patients with PBC who had moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline,” said senior author Marlyn J. Mayo, MD, AGAF, of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, in presenting the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In PBC, a rare, chronic liver disease that can progressively destroy the intrahepatic bile ducts, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has remained a highly effective standard of care; however, up to 40% of patients either fail to achieve a biochemical response or develop intolerances to the therapy.

Seladelpar, in addition to improving measures of PBC disease including liver function tests and markers of cholestasis, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the symptoms of pruritus and related sleep disturbances.

The drug is approved by the FDA for the treatment of PBC in combination with UDCA when patients fail to have an adequate response to UDCA alone, or as monotherapy when patients are intolerant to UDCA.

With pruritus, or itching, representing a key detrimental symptom of PBC and affecting as many as 70% of patients, Mayo and her colleagues conducted a pooled analysis of two phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, the ENHANCE and RESPONSE trials, in order to delve deeper into the specifics of how seladelpar improves itching.

The studies both involved patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline who had an inadequate response to UDCA and received seladelpar as add-on therapy to the drug, if tolerant of UDCA.

In the ENHANCE trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to daily oral seladelpar 5 mg, 10 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks, and in the RESPONSE trial, they were randomized 2:1 to daily oral seladelpar 10 mg or placebo for 52 weeks.

The ENHANCE trial was terminated early with key endpoints amended to 3 months.

In total, the analysis included 126 patients with a pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) score of at least 4 at baseline (indicative of moderate-to-severe itch), with 76 patients receiving seladelpar 10 mg and 50 receiving placebo.

Patients in the two groups had a mean age of 53 years; 96% were female; their mean age at PBC diagnosis was 47 years; and itch scores — including the NRS, PBC-40 itch domain, and 5-D itch scale scores — were similar across the treatment and placebo groups at baseline.

After 6 months, patients treated with seladelpar reported greater improvements than those receiving placebo across all measures.

For changes in pruritus NRS through month 6, greater decreases were observed with seladelpar 10 mg at months 1, 3, and 6, with a 6-month decrease from baseline of 3.33 in the seladelpar group vs 1.77 with placebo (P < .01).

For PBC-40 itch domain scores, the mean reduction from baseline at 6 months was 2.41 vs 0.98, although significance was lost at month 6 due to a reduction in numbers.

For the 5-D itch total scores, the mean reduction from baseline to 6 months was 5.09 vs 1.70 (P < .0001).

And for the 5-D itch degree, the domain scores were also improved with seladelpar (mean reduction from baseline to 6 months of 1.08 vs 0.47; P = .01).

Patients treated with seladelpar also showed greater improvement in the sleep disturbances that can accompany pruritus, including on the 5-D itch Sleep Item scale (P < .01 at 6 months) and the PBC-40 Sleep Disturbance Item (P < .0001 at 1 month vs placebo; not significant at 6 months).

There were no significant differences between the groups in safety or tolerability profiles overall, with any adverse events occurring in 57 of the 76 (75%) patients receiving seladelpar and 40 of 50 (80%) receiving placebo.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 8% of seladelpar and 12% of placebo patients, and pruritus-specific adverse events occurred in 8% and 14%, respectively.

“We found that improvement versus placebo was evident at month 1 of treatment and was sustained through month 6 using three different measures of pruritus,” Mayo said.

“And improvements in sleep disturbance were also seen in patients receiving seladelpar vs placebo through month 6 using two different measures of (5-D itch and PBC-40).”

Mayo noted that seladelpar is currently the only FDA-approved second-line therapy for people who have not had an adequate biochemical response or cannot tolerate UDCA.

While the drug is not likely at a point where it could be positioned as a first-line itch therapy, Mayo suggested that, for those who have had a poor response to UDCA, “I think it makes sense to start with something like this and then see how patients’ itching is affected by the drug.”

“It’s possible it could help avoid having to add yet another drug to treat the itch, and the hope is that this will help reduce the issue of polypharmacy.”

Commenting on the study, Luis F. Lara, MD, Division Chief of Digestive Diseases at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, who co-moderated the session, underscored the need for treatment among patients who fail to respond to standard therapy.

“I think this is very important research,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “First, the fact that so many patients suffer their pruritus without any therapy is actually disturbing.”

“And the fact that this medication seems to be extremely effective in treating this, likely tremendously affecting patients’ quality of life, is something to really highlight.”

Lara noted that the findings raise the question of “whether this should be considered earlier in the disease process, rather than waiting to use it as a second-line therapy, when pruritus has already become significant.”

Akwi W. Asombang, MD, interventional enterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was also a co-moderator, agreed that “having a disease process that results in itching all the time can represent profound discomfort and a significant quality of life issue.”

“So, to have a drug that could minimize or alleviate that process could be huge,” Asombang told GI & Hepatology News.

The ENHANCE and RESPONSE trials were funded by Gilead Sciences. Mayo’s disclosures included consulting and/or other relationships with CymaBay Therapeutics, GSK, Intra-Sana, Ipsen, Mirum Pharma, and Target PharmaSolutions. Lara disclosed having a relationship with AbbVie. Asombang reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

PHOENIX — Seladelpar, a first-in-class, selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta agonist, shows significant improvement across key pruritus outcomes in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), supporting the drug’s benefits for the large percentage of patients who may fail to improve with or become intolerant of standard PBC therapy.

“This pooled analysis demonstrated that seladelpar treatment for up to 6 months reduced pruritus to a greater extent vs placebo in patients with PBC who had moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline,” said senior author Marlyn J. Mayo, MD, AGAF, of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, in presenting the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In PBC, a rare, chronic liver disease that can progressively destroy the intrahepatic bile ducts, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has remained a highly effective standard of care; however, up to 40% of patients either fail to achieve a biochemical response or develop intolerances to the therapy.

Seladelpar, in addition to improving measures of PBC disease including liver function tests and markers of cholestasis, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the symptoms of pruritus and related sleep disturbances.

The drug is approved by the FDA for the treatment of PBC in combination with UDCA when patients fail to have an adequate response to UDCA alone, or as monotherapy when patients are intolerant to UDCA.

With pruritus, or itching, representing a key detrimental symptom of PBC and affecting as many as 70% of patients, Mayo and her colleagues conducted a pooled analysis of two phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, the ENHANCE and RESPONSE trials, in order to delve deeper into the specifics of how seladelpar improves itching.

The studies both involved patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline who had an inadequate response to UDCA and received seladelpar as add-on therapy to the drug, if tolerant of UDCA.

In the ENHANCE trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to daily oral seladelpar 5 mg, 10 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks, and in the RESPONSE trial, they were randomized 2:1 to daily oral seladelpar 10 mg or placebo for 52 weeks.

The ENHANCE trial was terminated early with key endpoints amended to 3 months.

In total, the analysis included 126 patients with a pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) score of at least 4 at baseline (indicative of moderate-to-severe itch), with 76 patients receiving seladelpar 10 mg and 50 receiving placebo.

Patients in the two groups had a mean age of 53 years; 96% were female; their mean age at PBC diagnosis was 47 years; and itch scores — including the NRS, PBC-40 itch domain, and 5-D itch scale scores — were similar across the treatment and placebo groups at baseline.

After 6 months, patients treated with seladelpar reported greater improvements than those receiving placebo across all measures.

For changes in pruritus NRS through month 6, greater decreases were observed with seladelpar 10 mg at months 1, 3, and 6, with a 6-month decrease from baseline of 3.33 in the seladelpar group vs 1.77 with placebo (P < .01).

For PBC-40 itch domain scores, the mean reduction from baseline at 6 months was 2.41 vs 0.98, although significance was lost at month 6 due to a reduction in numbers.

For the 5-D itch total scores, the mean reduction from baseline to 6 months was 5.09 vs 1.70 (P < .0001).

And for the 5-D itch degree, the domain scores were also improved with seladelpar (mean reduction from baseline to 6 months of 1.08 vs 0.47; P = .01).

Patients treated with seladelpar also showed greater improvement in the sleep disturbances that can accompany pruritus, including on the 5-D itch Sleep Item scale (P < .01 at 6 months) and the PBC-40 Sleep Disturbance Item (P < .0001 at 1 month vs placebo; not significant at 6 months).

There were no significant differences between the groups in safety or tolerability profiles overall, with any adverse events occurring in 57 of the 76 (75%) patients receiving seladelpar and 40 of 50 (80%) receiving placebo.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 8% of seladelpar and 12% of placebo patients, and pruritus-specific adverse events occurred in 8% and 14%, respectively.

“We found that improvement versus placebo was evident at month 1 of treatment and was sustained through month 6 using three different measures of pruritus,” Mayo said.

“And improvements in sleep disturbance were also seen in patients receiving seladelpar vs placebo through month 6 using two different measures of (5-D itch and PBC-40).”

Mayo noted that seladelpar is currently the only FDA-approved second-line therapy for people who have not had an adequate biochemical response or cannot tolerate UDCA.

While the drug is not likely at a point where it could be positioned as a first-line itch therapy, Mayo suggested that, for those who have had a poor response to UDCA, “I think it makes sense to start with something like this and then see how patients’ itching is affected by the drug.”

“It’s possible it could help avoid having to add yet another drug to treat the itch, and the hope is that this will help reduce the issue of polypharmacy.”

Commenting on the study, Luis F. Lara, MD, Division Chief of Digestive Diseases at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, who co-moderated the session, underscored the need for treatment among patients who fail to respond to standard therapy.

“I think this is very important research,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “First, the fact that so many patients suffer their pruritus without any therapy is actually disturbing.”

“And the fact that this medication seems to be extremely effective in treating this, likely tremendously affecting patients’ quality of life, is something to really highlight.”

Lara noted that the findings raise the question of “whether this should be considered earlier in the disease process, rather than waiting to use it as a second-line therapy, when pruritus has already become significant.”

Akwi W. Asombang, MD, interventional enterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was also a co-moderator, agreed that “having a disease process that results in itching all the time can represent profound discomfort and a significant quality of life issue.”

“So, to have a drug that could minimize or alleviate that process could be huge,” Asombang told GI & Hepatology News.

The ENHANCE and RESPONSE trials were funded by Gilead Sciences. Mayo’s disclosures included consulting and/or other relationships with CymaBay Therapeutics, GSK, Intra-Sana, Ipsen, Mirum Pharma, and Target PharmaSolutions. Lara disclosed having a relationship with AbbVie. Asombang reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

PHOENIX — Seladelpar, a first-in-class, selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta agonist, shows significant improvement across key pruritus outcomes in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), supporting the drug’s benefits for the large percentage of patients who may fail to improve with or become intolerant of standard PBC therapy.

“This pooled analysis demonstrated that seladelpar treatment for up to 6 months reduced pruritus to a greater extent vs placebo in patients with PBC who had moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline,” said senior author Marlyn J. Mayo, MD, AGAF, of the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, in presenting the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

In PBC, a rare, chronic liver disease that can progressively destroy the intrahepatic bile ducts, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) has remained a highly effective standard of care; however, up to 40% of patients either fail to achieve a biochemical response or develop intolerances to the therapy.

Seladelpar, in addition to improving measures of PBC disease including liver function tests and markers of cholestasis, has been shown in clinical trials to reduce the symptoms of pruritus and related sleep disturbances.

The drug is approved by the FDA for the treatment of PBC in combination with UDCA when patients fail to have an adequate response to UDCA alone, or as monotherapy when patients are intolerant to UDCA.

With pruritus, or itching, representing a key detrimental symptom of PBC and affecting as many as 70% of patients, Mayo and her colleagues conducted a pooled analysis of two phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, the ENHANCE and RESPONSE trials, in order to delve deeper into the specifics of how seladelpar improves itching.

The studies both involved patients with PBC and moderate-to-severe pruritus at baseline who had an inadequate response to UDCA and received seladelpar as add-on therapy to the drug, if tolerant of UDCA.

In the ENHANCE trial, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to daily oral seladelpar 5 mg, 10 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks, and in the RESPONSE trial, they were randomized 2:1 to daily oral seladelpar 10 mg or placebo for 52 weeks.

The ENHANCE trial was terminated early with key endpoints amended to 3 months.

In total, the analysis included 126 patients with a pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) score of at least 4 at baseline (indicative of moderate-to-severe itch), with 76 patients receiving seladelpar 10 mg and 50 receiving placebo.

Patients in the two groups had a mean age of 53 years; 96% were female; their mean age at PBC diagnosis was 47 years; and itch scores — including the NRS, PBC-40 itch domain, and 5-D itch scale scores — were similar across the treatment and placebo groups at baseline.

After 6 months, patients treated with seladelpar reported greater improvements than those receiving placebo across all measures.

For changes in pruritus NRS through month 6, greater decreases were observed with seladelpar 10 mg at months 1, 3, and 6, with a 6-month decrease from baseline of 3.33 in the seladelpar group vs 1.77 with placebo (P < .01).

For PBC-40 itch domain scores, the mean reduction from baseline at 6 months was 2.41 vs 0.98, although significance was lost at month 6 due to a reduction in numbers.

For the 5-D itch total scores, the mean reduction from baseline to 6 months was 5.09 vs 1.70 (P < .0001).

And for the 5-D itch degree, the domain scores were also improved with seladelpar (mean reduction from baseline to 6 months of 1.08 vs 0.47; P = .01).

Patients treated with seladelpar also showed greater improvement in the sleep disturbances that can accompany pruritus, including on the 5-D itch Sleep Item scale (P < .01 at 6 months) and the PBC-40 Sleep Disturbance Item (P < .0001 at 1 month vs placebo; not significant at 6 months).

There were no significant differences between the groups in safety or tolerability profiles overall, with any adverse events occurring in 57 of the 76 (75%) patients receiving seladelpar and 40 of 50 (80%) receiving placebo.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 8% of seladelpar and 12% of placebo patients, and pruritus-specific adverse events occurred in 8% and 14%, respectively.

“We found that improvement versus placebo was evident at month 1 of treatment and was sustained through month 6 using three different measures of pruritus,” Mayo said.

“And improvements in sleep disturbance were also seen in patients receiving seladelpar vs placebo through month 6 using two different measures of (5-D itch and PBC-40).”

Mayo noted that seladelpar is currently the only FDA-approved second-line therapy for people who have not had an adequate biochemical response or cannot tolerate UDCA.

While the drug is not likely at a point where it could be positioned as a first-line itch therapy, Mayo suggested that, for those who have had a poor response to UDCA, “I think it makes sense to start with something like this and then see how patients’ itching is affected by the drug.”

“It’s possible it could help avoid having to add yet another drug to treat the itch, and the hope is that this will help reduce the issue of polypharmacy.”

Commenting on the study, Luis F. Lara, MD, Division Chief of Digestive Diseases at the University of Cincinnati in Cincinnati, who co-moderated the session, underscored the need for treatment among patients who fail to respond to standard therapy.

“I think this is very important research,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “First, the fact that so many patients suffer their pruritus without any therapy is actually disturbing.”

“And the fact that this medication seems to be extremely effective in treating this, likely tremendously affecting patients’ quality of life, is something to really highlight.”

Lara noted that the findings raise the question of “whether this should be considered earlier in the disease process, rather than waiting to use it as a second-line therapy, when pruritus has already become significant.”

Akwi W. Asombang, MD, interventional enterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was also a co-moderator, agreed that “having a disease process that results in itching all the time can represent profound discomfort and a significant quality of life issue.”

“So, to have a drug that could minimize or alleviate that process could be huge,” Asombang told GI & Hepatology News.

The ENHANCE and RESPONSE trials were funded by Gilead Sciences. Mayo’s disclosures included consulting and/or other relationships with CymaBay Therapeutics, GSK, Intra-Sana, Ipsen, Mirum Pharma, and Target PharmaSolutions. Lara disclosed having a relationship with AbbVie. Asombang reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

In this episode of Private Practice Perspectives, Dr. Naresh Gunaratnam, current president and board chair of Digestive Health Physician Association, speaks with Dr. Larry Kim, current president of AGA, about how GI societies can best support fellows and early career physicians.

In this episode of Private Practice Perspectives, Dr. Naresh Gunaratnam, current president and board chair of Digestive Health Physician Association, speaks with Dr. Larry Kim, current president of AGA, about how GI societies can best support fellows and early career physicians.

In this episode of Private Practice Perspectives, Dr. Naresh Gunaratnam, current president and board chair of Digestive Health Physician Association, speaks with Dr. Larry Kim, current president of AGA, about how GI societies can best support fellows and early career physicians.

On Nov. 22, 2014, 8 years after he came back from Iraq with “crippling” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Jonathan Lubecky took his first dose of the psychedelic compound methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Lubecky, a Marine, Army, and National Guard veteran, described his path to MDMA therapy in in the New Horizons in Health podcast.

After 5 suicide attempts and “the hundreds of times I thought about it or stood on a bridge or had a plan,” he felt he had run out of options. Then, in a counseling session, a psychiatric intern slid a piece of paper across the table to him. It read “Google MDMA PTSD.”

Luckily for Lubecky, a space in a clinical trial opened up, in which he had 8 hours of talk therapy with specially trained therapists, combined with MDMA. “MDMA is a tool that opens up the mind, body and spirit,” he said, “so you can heal and process all those memories and traumas that are causing yourissues. It puts you in a middle place where you can talk about trauma without having panic attacks, without your body betraying you, and look at it from a different perspective.” said he added, “It’s like doing therapy while being hugged by everyone who loves you in a bathtub full of puppies licking your face.” In 2023, 9 years after that first dose, Lubecky said, “I’ve been PTSD free longer than I had it.”

And now, in 2025, the research into psychedelic therapy for veterans like Lubecky is taking another step forward according to a report by Military.com. Nine VA facilities, in the Bronx, Los Angeles, Omaha, Palo Alto, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, West Haven, and White River Junction, are participating in long-term studies to test the safety and clinical impact of psychedelic compounds for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and anxiety disorders. 

Early trials from Johns Hopkins University, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and others found significant symptom reductions for some participants with chronic PTSD. MAPP2, the multisite phase 3 study that extended the findings of MAPP1, found that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo-assisted therapy. Notably, of the 52 participants (including 16 veterans) 45 (86%) achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 (71%) no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end. Despite the promising findings, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended against approving the treatment.

In 2024 the VA issued a request for applications for proposals from its network of VA researchers and academic institutions to gather “definitive scientific evidence” on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds, such as MDMA and psilocybin, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. It would be the first time since the 1960s that the VA had funded research on such compounds. 

Funding proposals for such research have cycled in and out of Congress for years, but have gathered more steam in the last few years. The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Department of Defense to establish a process for funding clinical research into the use of certain psychedelic substances to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. In April 2024, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI), cochairs of the Psychedelics Advancing Therapies (PATH) caucus, introduced the Innovative Therapies Centers of Excellence Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would increase federally funded research on innovative therapies to treat veterans with PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression. It would also, if enacted, direct the VA to create ≥ 5 dedicated centers of excellence to study the therapeutic uses of psychedelic substances. The bill has also been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project.

The current administration has two strong high-level supporters of psychedelics research: VA Secretary Doug Collins and US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sec. Kennedy has castigated the FDA for what he calls “aggressive suppression” of alternative and complementary treatments, including psychedelics. This, although the FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA for treating PTSD and psilocybin for treating depression in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as well a pivotal draft guidance in 2023 for the development of psychedelic drugs for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and various medical conditions.

Collins, citing an “eye-opening” discussion with Kennedy, enthusiastically backs the research into psychedelics. In a May 2025 hearing that was mainly a series of testy exchanges about his proposed budget slashing, he emphasized the importance of keeping and expanding VA programs and studies on psychedelic treatments, something he has been advocating for since the beginning of his appointment. “We want to make sure we’re not closing off any outlet for a veteran who could be helped by these programs,” he said. 

Taking the intern’s advice to look into MDMA, Jonathan Lubecky said, was one of the best decisions he’d ever made. But “it’s not the MDMA that fixes you,” he said. “It’s the therapy. It’s the therapist working with you and you doing the hard work.”

On Nov. 22, 2014, 8 years after he came back from Iraq with “crippling” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Jonathan Lubecky took his first dose of the psychedelic compound methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Lubecky, a Marine, Army, and National Guard veteran, described his path to MDMA therapy in in the New Horizons in Health podcast.

After 5 suicide attempts and “the hundreds of times I thought about it or stood on a bridge or had a plan,” he felt he had run out of options. Then, in a counseling session, a psychiatric intern slid a piece of paper across the table to him. It read “Google MDMA PTSD.”

Luckily for Lubecky, a space in a clinical trial opened up, in which he had 8 hours of talk therapy with specially trained therapists, combined with MDMA. “MDMA is a tool that opens up the mind, body and spirit,” he said, “so you can heal and process all those memories and traumas that are causing yourissues. It puts you in a middle place where you can talk about trauma without having panic attacks, without your body betraying you, and look at it from a different perspective.” said he added, “It’s like doing therapy while being hugged by everyone who loves you in a bathtub full of puppies licking your face.” In 2023, 9 years after that first dose, Lubecky said, “I’ve been PTSD free longer than I had it.”

And now, in 2025, the research into psychedelic therapy for veterans like Lubecky is taking another step forward according to a report by Military.com. Nine VA facilities, in the Bronx, Los Angeles, Omaha, Palo Alto, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, West Haven, and White River Junction, are participating in long-term studies to test the safety and clinical impact of psychedelic compounds for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and anxiety disorders. 

Early trials from Johns Hopkins University, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and others found significant symptom reductions for some participants with chronic PTSD. MAPP2, the multisite phase 3 study that extended the findings of MAPP1, found that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo-assisted therapy. Notably, of the 52 participants (including 16 veterans) 45 (86%) achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 (71%) no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end. Despite the promising findings, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended against approving the treatment.

In 2024 the VA issued a request for applications for proposals from its network of VA researchers and academic institutions to gather “definitive scientific evidence” on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds, such as MDMA and psilocybin, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. It would be the first time since the 1960s that the VA had funded research on such compounds. 

Funding proposals for such research have cycled in and out of Congress for years, but have gathered more steam in the last few years. The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Department of Defense to establish a process for funding clinical research into the use of certain psychedelic substances to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. In April 2024, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI), cochairs of the Psychedelics Advancing Therapies (PATH) caucus, introduced the Innovative Therapies Centers of Excellence Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would increase federally funded research on innovative therapies to treat veterans with PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression. It would also, if enacted, direct the VA to create ≥ 5 dedicated centers of excellence to study the therapeutic uses of psychedelic substances. The bill has also been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project.

The current administration has two strong high-level supporters of psychedelics research: VA Secretary Doug Collins and US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sec. Kennedy has castigated the FDA for what he calls “aggressive suppression” of alternative and complementary treatments, including psychedelics. This, although the FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA for treating PTSD and psilocybin for treating depression in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as well a pivotal draft guidance in 2023 for the development of psychedelic drugs for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and various medical conditions.

Collins, citing an “eye-opening” discussion with Kennedy, enthusiastically backs the research into psychedelics. In a May 2025 hearing that was mainly a series of testy exchanges about his proposed budget slashing, he emphasized the importance of keeping and expanding VA programs and studies on psychedelic treatments, something he has been advocating for since the beginning of his appointment. “We want to make sure we’re not closing off any outlet for a veteran who could be helped by these programs,” he said. 

Taking the intern’s advice to look into MDMA, Jonathan Lubecky said, was one of the best decisions he’d ever made. But “it’s not the MDMA that fixes you,” he said. “It’s the therapy. It’s the therapist working with you and you doing the hard work.”

On Nov. 22, 2014, 8 years after he came back from Iraq with “crippling” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Jonathan Lubecky took his first dose of the psychedelic compound methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Lubecky, a Marine, Army, and National Guard veteran, described his path to MDMA therapy in in the New Horizons in Health podcast.

After 5 suicide attempts and “the hundreds of times I thought about it or stood on a bridge or had a plan,” he felt he had run out of options. Then, in a counseling session, a psychiatric intern slid a piece of paper across the table to him. It read “Google MDMA PTSD.”

Luckily for Lubecky, a space in a clinical trial opened up, in which he had 8 hours of talk therapy with specially trained therapists, combined with MDMA. “MDMA is a tool that opens up the mind, body and spirit,” he said, “so you can heal and process all those memories and traumas that are causing yourissues. It puts you in a middle place where you can talk about trauma without having panic attacks, without your body betraying you, and look at it from a different perspective.” said he added, “It’s like doing therapy while being hugged by everyone who loves you in a bathtub full of puppies licking your face.” In 2023, 9 years after that first dose, Lubecky said, “I’ve been PTSD free longer than I had it.”

And now, in 2025, the research into psychedelic therapy for veterans like Lubecky is taking another step forward according to a report by Military.com. Nine VA facilities, in the Bronx, Los Angeles, Omaha, Palo Alto, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, San Francisco, West Haven, and White River Junction, are participating in long-term studies to test the safety and clinical impact of psychedelic compounds for PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, and anxiety disorders. 

Early trials from Johns Hopkins University, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), and others found significant symptom reductions for some participants with chronic PTSD. MAPP2, the multisite phase 3 study that extended the findings of MAPP1, found that MDMA-assisted therapy significantly improved PTSD symptoms and functional impairment, compared with placebo-assisted therapy. Notably, of the 52 participants (including 16 veterans) 45 (86%) achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 37 (71%) no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end. Despite the promising findings, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel recommended against approving the treatment.

In 2024 the VA issued a request for applications for proposals from its network of VA researchers and academic institutions to gather “definitive scientific evidence” on the potential efficacy and safety of psychedelic compounds, such as MDMA and psilocybin, when used in conjunction with psychotherapy. It would be the first time since the 1960s that the VA had funded research on such compounds. 

Funding proposals for such research have cycled in and out of Congress for years, but have gathered more steam in the last few years. The 2024 National Defense Authorization Act directed the US Department of Defense to establish a process for funding clinical research into the use of certain psychedelic substances to treat PTSD and traumatic brain injury. In April 2024, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI), cochairs of the Psychedelics Advancing Therapies (PATH) caucus, introduced the Innovative Therapies Centers of Excellence Act of 2025, bipartisan legislation that would increase federally funded research on innovative therapies to treat veterans with PTSD, substance use disorder, and depression. It would also, if enacted, direct the VA to create ≥ 5 dedicated centers of excellence to study the therapeutic uses of psychedelic substances. The bill has also been endorsed by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Wounded Warrior Project.

The current administration has two strong high-level supporters of psychedelics research: VA Secretary Doug Collins and US Department of Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sec. Kennedy has castigated the FDA for what he calls “aggressive suppression” of alternative and complementary treatments, including psychedelics. This, although the FDA granted breakthrough therapy status for MDMA for treating PTSD and psilocybin for treating depression in 2018 and 2019, respectively, as well a pivotal draft guidance in 2023 for the development of psychedelic drugs for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and various medical conditions.

Collins, citing an “eye-opening” discussion with Kennedy, enthusiastically backs the research into psychedelics. In a May 2025 hearing that was mainly a series of testy exchanges about his proposed budget slashing, he emphasized the importance of keeping and expanding VA programs and studies on psychedelic treatments, something he has been advocating for since the beginning of his appointment. “We want to make sure we’re not closing off any outlet for a veteran who could be helped by these programs,” he said. 

Taking the intern’s advice to look into MDMA, Jonathan Lubecky said, was one of the best decisions he’d ever made. But “it’s not the MDMA that fixes you,” he said. “It’s the therapy. It’s the therapist working with you and you doing the hard work.”

Children with Wilson’s disease (WD) are more likely than are adults to present with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure and have lower transplant-free survival, according to data from a large single-center study in India.

These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”

To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024. 

Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available. 

Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.

Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.

The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups. 

Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.

Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.

Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort. 

No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.

“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.

The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children with Wilson’s disease (WD) are more likely than are adults to present with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure and have lower transplant-free survival, according to data from a large single-center study in India.

These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”

To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024. 

Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available. 

Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.

Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.

The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups. 

Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.

Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.

Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort. 

No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.

“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.

The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children with Wilson’s disease (WD) are more likely than are adults to present with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure and have lower transplant-free survival, according to data from a large single-center study in India.

These findings underscore the importance of early recognition and genetic evaluation in pediatric patients, and timely consideration of liver transplantation in severe presentations, reported lead author Anand V. Kulkarni, MD, of AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India, and colleagues.

“There is a lack of large cohort studies evaluating the clinical presentation of WD, along with a limited understanding of genotype–phenotype correlations in patients with WD presenting with liver disease and the absence of comprehensive comparisons between pediatric and adult outcomes,” the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances (2025 Jun. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100717). “Additionally, data on living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) outcomes in WD remain scarce.”

To address these gaps, Kulkarni and colleagues performed a single-center retrospective study of all patients with WD diagnosed and managed at AIG Hospitals between June 2020 and April 2024. 

Diagnosis followed Leipzig criteria, incorporating clinical features, slit-lamp examination for Kayser–Fleischer rings, serum ceruloplasmin, 24-hour urinary copper, hepatic copper when available, and genetic testing when available. 

Patients were stratified by age into pediatric and adult groups. The investigators compared clinical presentation, laboratory parameters, and outcomes across age groups.

Management reflected standard practice at the center: chelation with D-penicillamine or trientine, zinc therapy as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, plasma exchange for acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure, and evaluation for living-donor liver transplantation when indicated. Genetic analysis was performed in approximately 70% of the cohort.

The final dataset included 156 patients, with a median age of 19 years (range, 2–57), and an approximately equal split between adult and pediatric groups. 

Presentation differed markedly by age. Among pediatric patients, the most common presentations were acute liver failure (26.7%) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (20%). Adults most frequently presented with decompensated cirrhosis (30.9%). Kayser–Fleischer rings were more prevalent in the pediatric group, consistent with underlying disease despite acute presentation.

Outcomes also varied by age and presentation. On Kaplan–Meier analysis, transplant-free survival was 72% in children and 87.7% in adults after a median follow-up of 1.33 years (P = .01). Overall cohort transplant-free survival at 1.33 years was 80.1%. Thirteen percent of patients underwent LDLT, with 90% 1-year post-transplant survival. Among those who received plasma exchange for acute presentations, transplant-free survival was 40.5%.

Among the patients with genetic data, 54.1% were homozygous or compound heterozygous for combinations of pathogenic variants and variants of uncertain significance in ATP7B. The most frequently observed pathogenic variants were p.Gly977Glu, p.Cys271Ter, and p.Asn1186Ser. Several additional variants, including novel changes, were identified across the cohort. 

No consistent genotype–phenotype correlation was observed. The investigators noted that the center’s focus on liver disease likely enriched the cohort for hepatic presentations, and that some patients were included based on Leipzig scores of 2-3 with supportive clinical response to therapy.

“Further research should focus on identifying structural variants, variants in other genes, and epigenetic modulators of genetic expression,” Kulkarni and colleagues concluded.

The genetic tests were performed with intramural funding support from the Asian Healthcare Foundation, provided to AIG Hospitals Hyderabad. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

PHOENIX — The opportunity to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when patients present to the emergency department (ED) with the classic symptom of esophageal food impaction (EFI) is commonly missed, with necessary biopsies provided at strikingly low rates, despite guideline recommendations, new research showed.

“This is the first study to assess the rate of biopsies at time of esophageal food impaction in a large, real-world dataset of community practices,” the authors explained in research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The findings underscore that “clinicians should remember to perform esophageal biopsies during endoscopy for esophageal food impaction.”

Research shows patients with EoE, a chronic and progressive type 2 inflammatory disease, have an average delay of 4 years before being diagnosed, with a delay of up to 10 years in about a third of cases. With those delays comes the likelihood of disease progression.

The latest guidelines from the ACG indicate that for diagnosis, “from a practical standpoint,” the preferred approach is to obtain at least two to four biopsies from at least two distinct esophageal areas, while targeting areas of visual inflammation.

However, prior evidence suggests that the biopsies are commonly not performed when patients present with the symptoms of EFI.

To further investigate the management of EFI during and after ED visits in a real-world setting, first author Walker D. Redd, MD, Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2566 patients in a multistate gastrointestinal practice group at 143 care centers in seven US states.

The patients were treated for esophageal food or foreign body removal between 2018 and 2024.

Among them, 1434 patients received evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with 754 having no EGD and 378 receiving EGD for non-EFI.

The patients had a mean age of 63, with nearly 60% being older than 60 years, and 44.9% were women.

At the index EGD, only 19% had records of having esophageal biopsies. Among them, nearly half, 47%, were determined to have biopsy-confirmed EoE.

Of those who did not receive biopsies, only 7% had records of having received a follow-up EGD with an esophageal biopsy within 1 year, with 40% of those having EoE confirmed from a biopsy.

Among the remaining 93% of patients who had no record of such follow-up care within 1 year, 41% were lost to follow-up.

“We found that only about one fifth of patients had esophageal biopsies collected at the time of esophageal food impaction, which is similar to previous reports,” Redd said.

Overall, “esophageal biopsy rates at the time of esophageal food impaction remain low, and follow-up EGD with biopsy rates are also very low.”

Responding to a comment from the audience, Redd agreed that a limitation of the study was the scenario of patients from out of town being treated at an ED and then going back home, where their follow-up status may not be known.

Nevertheless, awareness of the low rates “represent an important opportunity to reduce the diagnostic delay and improve quality of care in EoE,” he said.

Commenting on the study, Danny Issa, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, agreed that the low rates of follow-up were troubling.

“Only 1 in 10 is a very low rate of follow-up endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

“These results show we need to encourage quality improvement initiatives to make sure those patients are followed up,” he said.

Furthermore, “additional studies are needed to better understand the barriers behind the lack of follow-up, which were not addressed fully in the study.”

Co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Valley Medical Group, in Paramus, New Jersey, added that “the point that needs to be made is that these patients need biopsies so you can diagnose and subsequently treat them.”

Redd reported having a consulting relationship with Sanofi. Issa reported having relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report.

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

PHOENIX — The opportunity to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when patients present to the emergency department (ED) with the classic symptom of esophageal food impaction (EFI) is commonly missed, with necessary biopsies provided at strikingly low rates, despite guideline recommendations, new research showed.

“This is the first study to assess the rate of biopsies at time of esophageal food impaction in a large, real-world dataset of community practices,” the authors explained in research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The findings underscore that “clinicians should remember to perform esophageal biopsies during endoscopy for esophageal food impaction.”

Research shows patients with EoE, a chronic and progressive type 2 inflammatory disease, have an average delay of 4 years before being diagnosed, with a delay of up to 10 years in about a third of cases. With those delays comes the likelihood of disease progression.

The latest guidelines from the ACG indicate that for diagnosis, “from a practical standpoint,” the preferred approach is to obtain at least two to four biopsies from at least two distinct esophageal areas, while targeting areas of visual inflammation.

However, prior evidence suggests that the biopsies are commonly not performed when patients present with the symptoms of EFI.

To further investigate the management of EFI during and after ED visits in a real-world setting, first author Walker D. Redd, MD, Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2566 patients in a multistate gastrointestinal practice group at 143 care centers in seven US states.

The patients were treated for esophageal food or foreign body removal between 2018 and 2024.

Among them, 1434 patients received evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with 754 having no EGD and 378 receiving EGD for non-EFI.

The patients had a mean age of 63, with nearly 60% being older than 60 years, and 44.9% were women.

At the index EGD, only 19% had records of having esophageal biopsies. Among them, nearly half, 47%, were determined to have biopsy-confirmed EoE.

Of those who did not receive biopsies, only 7% had records of having received a follow-up EGD with an esophageal biopsy within 1 year, with 40% of those having EoE confirmed from a biopsy.

Among the remaining 93% of patients who had no record of such follow-up care within 1 year, 41% were lost to follow-up.

“We found that only about one fifth of patients had esophageal biopsies collected at the time of esophageal food impaction, which is similar to previous reports,” Redd said.

Overall, “esophageal biopsy rates at the time of esophageal food impaction remain low, and follow-up EGD with biopsy rates are also very low.”

Responding to a comment from the audience, Redd agreed that a limitation of the study was the scenario of patients from out of town being treated at an ED and then going back home, where their follow-up status may not be known.

Nevertheless, awareness of the low rates “represent an important opportunity to reduce the diagnostic delay and improve quality of care in EoE,” he said.

Commenting on the study, Danny Issa, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, agreed that the low rates of follow-up were troubling.

“Only 1 in 10 is a very low rate of follow-up endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

“These results show we need to encourage quality improvement initiatives to make sure those patients are followed up,” he said.

Furthermore, “additional studies are needed to better understand the barriers behind the lack of follow-up, which were not addressed fully in the study.”

Co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Valley Medical Group, in Paramus, New Jersey, added that “the point that needs to be made is that these patients need biopsies so you can diagnose and subsequently treat them.”

Redd reported having a consulting relationship with Sanofi. Issa reported having relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report.

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

PHOENIX — The opportunity to diagnose eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when patients present to the emergency department (ED) with the classic symptom of esophageal food impaction (EFI) is commonly missed, with necessary biopsies provided at strikingly low rates, despite guideline recommendations, new research showed.

“This is the first study to assess the rate of biopsies at time of esophageal food impaction in a large, real-world dataset of community practices,” the authors explained in research presented at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2025 Annual Scientific Meeting.

The findings underscore that “clinicians should remember to perform esophageal biopsies during endoscopy for esophageal food impaction.”

Research shows patients with EoE, a chronic and progressive type 2 inflammatory disease, have an average delay of 4 years before being diagnosed, with a delay of up to 10 years in about a third of cases. With those delays comes the likelihood of disease progression.

The latest guidelines from the ACG indicate that for diagnosis, “from a practical standpoint,” the preferred approach is to obtain at least two to four biopsies from at least two distinct esophageal areas, while targeting areas of visual inflammation.

However, prior evidence suggests that the biopsies are commonly not performed when patients present with the symptoms of EFI.

To further investigate the management of EFI during and after ED visits in a real-world setting, first author Walker D. Redd, MD, Center for Gastrointestinal Biology and Disease, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2566 patients in a multistate gastrointestinal practice group at 143 care centers in seven US states.

The patients were treated for esophageal food or foreign body removal between 2018 and 2024.

Among them, 1434 patients received evaluation with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), with 754 having no EGD and 378 receiving EGD for non-EFI.

The patients had a mean age of 63, with nearly 60% being older than 60 years, and 44.9% were women.

At the index EGD, only 19% had records of having esophageal biopsies. Among them, nearly half, 47%, were determined to have biopsy-confirmed EoE.

Of those who did not receive biopsies, only 7% had records of having received a follow-up EGD with an esophageal biopsy within 1 year, with 40% of those having EoE confirmed from a biopsy.

Among the remaining 93% of patients who had no record of such follow-up care within 1 year, 41% were lost to follow-up.

“We found that only about one fifth of patients had esophageal biopsies collected at the time of esophageal food impaction, which is similar to previous reports,” Redd said.

Overall, “esophageal biopsy rates at the time of esophageal food impaction remain low, and follow-up EGD with biopsy rates are also very low.”

Responding to a comment from the audience, Redd agreed that a limitation of the study was the scenario of patients from out of town being treated at an ED and then going back home, where their follow-up status may not be known.

Nevertheless, awareness of the low rates “represent an important opportunity to reduce the diagnostic delay and improve quality of care in EoE,” he said.

Commenting on the study, Danny Issa, MD, an interventional gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, agreed that the low rates of follow-up were troubling.

“Only 1 in 10 is a very low rate of follow-up endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

“These results show we need to encourage quality improvement initiatives to make sure those patients are followed up,” he said.

Furthermore, “additional studies are needed to better understand the barriers behind the lack of follow-up, which were not addressed fully in the study.”

Co-moderator Sita S. Chokhavatia, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at Valley Medical Group, in Paramus, New Jersey, added that “the point that needs to be made is that these patients need biopsies so you can diagnose and subsequently treat them.”

Redd reported having a consulting relationship with Sanofi. Issa reported having relationships with Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly. Chokhavatia had no disclosures to report.

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