User login
Obesity Linked with Malignant Progression of Barrett’s Esophagus
A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.
“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.
“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”
The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Analyzing Risk
BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.
Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.
Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.
Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.
Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.
Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.
In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.
Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).
Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).
“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”
Considering Risk
This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.
“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”
Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.
“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.
One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.
“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.
“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”
The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Analyzing Risk
BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.
Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.
Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.
Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.
Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.
Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.
In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.
Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).
Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).
“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”
Considering Risk
This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.
“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”
Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.
“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.
One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A dose-response relationship exists between body mass index (BMI) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the authors found.
“Obesity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of many reflux-related esophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), BE, and EAC,” said senior author Leo Alexandre, MRCP, PhD, a clinical associate professor and member of the Norwich Epidemiology Centre at the University of East Anglia and gastroenterologist with the Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, both in Norwich, England.
“Guidelines advocate obesity as a criterion for targeted screening for BE in patients with chronic reflux symptoms,” he said. “While obesity is a recognized risk factor for both BE and EAC, it’s been unclear whether obesity is a risk factor for malignant progression.”
The study was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Analyzing Risk
BE, which is the only recognized precursor lesion to EAC, is associated with a 30-fold increase in the incidence of the aggressive cancer. Typically, malignant progression occurs when nondysplastic BE epithelium progresses to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and then HGD, followed by invasive adenocarcinoma.
Current guidelines suggest that patients with BE undergo endoscopic surveillance for early detection of adenocarcinoma. However, clinical risk factors could help with risk stratification and a personalized approach to long-term BE management, the authors wrote.
Alexandre and colleagues reviewed case-control or cohort studies that reported on the effect of BMI on the progression of nondysplastic BE or LGD to EAC, HGD, or esophageal cancer (EC). Then they estimated the dose-response relationship with a two-stage dose-response meta-analysis.
Overall, 20 observational studies reported data on 38,565 adult patients, including 1684 patients who were diagnosed with EAC, HGD, or EC. The studies enrolled patients between 1976 and 2019 and were published between 2005 and 2022. Most were based in Europe or the United States, and 74.4% of participants were men.
Among 12 cohort studies with 19,223 patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 816 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .03%.
Among eight cohort studies with 6647 male patients who had baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 555 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .02%.
In addition, among 1992 female patients with baseline nondysplastic BE or LGD, 110 progressed to EAC, HGD, or EC. The pooled annual rate of progression was .01%, which wasn’t a significant difference compared with the progression rate among male patients.
Based on meta-analyses, obesity was associated with a 4% increase in the risk for malignant progression among patients with BE (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07; P < .001).
Notably, each 5 unit increase in BMI was associated with a 6% increase in the risk of developing HGD or EAC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P < .001).
“Although the exact mechanisms by which obesity promotes esophageal carcinogenesis is not fully understood, several possible mechanisms may explain it,” Alexandre said. “The most obvious pathologic link is via GERD, with the mechanical effect of visceral obesity promoting the GERD directly, and the sequence of Barrett’s dysplasia to cancer indirectly. In addition, it has been demonstrated in experimental studies that gastric acid and bile acid drive malignant changes in esophageal epithelium through stimulation of proliferation, inhibition of apoptosis, and generation of free radicals.”
Considering Risk
This study highlights the importance of recognizing the association between obesity and cancer risks, said Prateek Sharma, MD, professor of medicine and director of gastrointestinal training at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas.
Sharma, who wasn’t involved with this study, coauthored an American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of BE.
“Obesity is a known risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma and may be a modifiable risk factor,” he said. “Showing that BMI is related to neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus may impact surveillance intervals.”
Future research should look at additional obesity-related factors, such as visceral obesity and malignant progression of BE, as well as whether diet, lifestyle, and bariatric interventions can reduce the risk for progression.
“The next steps also include plugging BMI into risk scores and risk stratification models to enable targeted surveillance among high-risk groups,” Sharma said.
One of the study coauthors received funding as a National Institute for Health Research Academic clinical fellow. No other funding sources were declared. Alexandre and Sharma reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
New Model Estimates Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B
The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.
“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.
“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”
The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Validating reREACH-B
During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.
In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log10 IU/mL.
In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).
The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.
In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.
In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.
Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.
Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log10 IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL.
For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.
In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.
“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.
Considering Prognostic Models
This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”
For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log10 IU/mL or > 8 log10 IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log10 IU/mL.
“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”
The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.
“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.
“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”
The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Validating reREACH-B
During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.
In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log10 IU/mL.
In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).
The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.
In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.
In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.
Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.
Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log10 IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL.
For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.
In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.
“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.
Considering Prognostic Models
This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”
For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log10 IU/mL or > 8 log10 IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log10 IU/mL.
“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”
The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The model, called Revised REACH-B or reREACH-B, stems from cohort studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan, and looks at the nonlinear parabolic association between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and HCC risk.
“Current clinical practice guidelines don’t advocate antiviral treatment for patients with CHB who don’t show elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, even in those with high HBV viral loads,” said coauthor Young-Suk Lim, MD, PhD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.
“This stance is rooted in the notion that patients in the immune-tolerant phase are at very low risk for developing HCC,” Lim said. “However, the immune-tolerant phase includes patients with HBV DNA levels who face the highest risk for HCC, and many patients with moderate HBV viremia fall into an undefined gray zone.”
The study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Validating reREACH-B
During a course of CHB, HBV viral loads and HCC risks evolve over time because of viral replication and host immune responses, Lim explained. Most patients typically move to seroclearance and an “inactive hepatitis” phase, but about 10%-20% can progress to a “reactivation” phase, where HBV DNA levels and ALT levels increase, which can increase HCC risk as well.
In a previous cohort study in Taiwan, a prognostic model called Risk Estimation for HCC in CHB — or REACH-B — found the risk for HCC increases tenfold with increasing levels of HBV DNA up to 5 log10IU/mL in noncirrhotic patients with CHB, regardless of ALT levels. Another cohort study in South Korea found a nonlinear parabolic association between HCC risk and HBV DNA levels up to 9 log10 IU/mL, with the highest risks found for moderate HBV DNA levels around 6 log10 IU/mL.
In this study, Lim and colleagues developed a prognostic model to integrate the nonlinear relationship and validated it externally, as well as compared it with the previous REACH-B model. The Revised REACH-B model incorporates six variables: age, sex, platelet count, HBV DNA level, ALT, and hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg).
The study included 14,378 treatment-naive, noncirrhotic adults with CHB and serum ALT levels < two times the upper limit of normal for at least 1 year and serum hepatitis B surface antigen for at least 6 months. The internal validation cohort included 6,949 patients from Asan Medical Center, and the external validation cohort included 7,429 patients from previous studies in Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Among the Asan cohort, the mean age was 45 years, 29.9% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.1 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 25 U/L. In the external cohort, the mean age was 46 years, 21% were HBeAg positive, median HBV DNA levels were 3.4 log10 IU/mL, and the median ALT level was 20 U/L.
In the Asan cohort, 435 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 10 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.63 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 6.4%.
In the external cohort, 467 patients (6.3%) developed HCC during a median follow-up of 12 years. The annual HCC incidence rate was 0.42 per 100 person-years, and the estimated cumulative probability of developing HCC at 10 years was 3.1%.
Overall, the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk was linear in the HBeAg-negative groups and inverse in the HBeAg-positive groups, with the association between HBV viral load and HCC risk showing a nonlinear parabolic pattern.
Across both cohorts, patients with HBV DNA levels between 5 and 6 log10 IU/mL had the highest risk for HCC in both the HBeAg-negative and HBeAg-positive groups, which was more than eight times higher than those HBV DNA levels ≤ 3 log10 IU/mL.
For internal validation, the Revised REACH-B model had a c-statistic of 0.844 and 5-year area under the curve of 0.864. For external validation across the three external cohorts, the reREACH-B had c-statistics of 0.804, 0.808, and 0.813, and 5-year area under the curve of 0.839, 0.860, and 0.865.
In addition, the revised model yielded a greater positive net benefit than the REACH-B model in the threshold probability range between 0% and 18%.
“These analyses indicate the reREACH-B model can be a valuable tool in clinical practice, aiding in timely management decisions,” Lim said.
Considering Prognostic Models
This study highlights the importance of recognizing that the association between HBV DNA viral load and HCC risk isn’t linear, said Norah Terrault, MD, chief of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
“In contrast to most chronic liver diseases where liver cancer develops only among those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, people with chronic hepatitis B are at risk prior to the development of cirrhosis,” she said. “Risk prediction scores for HCC can be a useful means of identifying those without cirrhosis who should be enrolled in HCC surveillance programs.”
For instance, patients with HBV DNA levels < 3 log10 IU/mL or > 8 log10 IU/mL don’t have an increased risk, Terrault noted. However, the highest risk group appears to be around 5-6 log10 IU/mL.
“Future risk prediction models should acknowledge that relationship in modeling HCC risk,” she said. “The re-REACH-B provides modest improvement over the REACH-B, but further validation of this score in more diverse cohorts is essential.”
The study received financial support from the Korean government and grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center of the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control through the National Cancer Center, which is funded by Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare. Lim and Terrault reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
VA Pays Billions for Costs Shifted From Medicare
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, > 40% of veterans enrolled by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received care from private practice, mainly for emergency services. Costs associated with that care have shifted from Medicare to the VA to the tune of billions of dollars, according to a recent study published in JAMA Health Forum.
The expenses are a result of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018, which established the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) and allowed the VA to contract with private clinicians. This provided veterans enrolled in both the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare to have 2 government sources of health care financing. The VHA is billed if the veteran receives care at one of its facilities or is referred to a community facility; Medicare is billed only if the veteran is treated for a service not covered by VHA.
These shifts are concerning, according to Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, and Said Ibrahim, MD, MPH. In an accompanying editorial, they outline how the changes affect whether VHA care will have adequate funding to provide care for the additional 740,000 enrollees who have entered the system in the past 2 years.
“This has created a $12 billion medical care budget shortfall for FY 2024,” Kizer and Ibrahim argue. The resulting “substantial budgetary tumult … is adversely impacting the front lines of care delivery at individual VA facilities, leading to delays in hiring caregivers and impeding access to VA care and timely care delivery, as well as greatly straining the traditional roles of VA staff and clinicians trying to manage the challenging cross-system referral processes.”
The study calculated the number of yearly emergency department (ED) visits per 1000 veterans in Medicare overall and by VA ED visits, VA-purchased community ED visits, and Medicare-purchased community ED visits. Estimated total costs shifted from Medicare to the VA after the MISSION Act between 2016 and 2021 were then calculated.
Of the 4,960,189 VA and Medicare enrollees in 2016, 37.0% presented to the ED at least once. Of the 4,837,436 dual enrollees in 2021, 37.6% presented to the ED at least once. ED visits increased 8%, from 820 per 1000 veterans in 2016, to 886 per 1000 veterans in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a dip in ED visits in 2020 by veterans (769 per 1000), but the number rose 2021 (852 per 1000 veterans).
Between 2016 and 2021, the percentage of VA-purchased community ED visits more than doubled, from 8.0% to 21.1%, while Medicare-purchased community ED visits dropped from 65.2% to 52.6%. Patterns were similar among veterans enrolled in traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage (MA). The study estimated that in 2021 at least $2 billion of VA community ED spending was due to payer shift from Medicare.
The shift is “particularly concerning” among veterans enrolled in MA since insurance plans receive capitated payments regardless of actual use of VA- or Medicare-covered services. However, the study’s observational design “limited our ability to infer causality between MISSION Act implementation and payer change.”
The cost shifting is “symptomatic of the fiscally undisciplined implementation of the VCCP and the lack of financially sound policy on payment for VA-Medicare dual enrollees,” according to Drs. Kizer and Ibrahim. “Addressing this matter seems especially important in light of numerous studies showing that the quality of community care often may be inferior to VA care, as well as less timely.”
Kizer and Ibrahim point out that when a veteran who is jointly enrolled in VA and MA plans receives care from the VA, the VA incurs the cost of providing those services even though the MA plan is being paid to provide them. The VA is not allowed to recoup its costs from Medicare. Thus, the government pays twice for the care of the same person.
A recent study reported > $78 billion in duplicate VA-MA spending between 2011 and 2020, with $12 billion in FY 2020. Kizer and Ibrahim suggest the current VA-MA duplicate spending is likely to be significantly more than the reported amounts.
“[No] evidence shows that this duplicate spending yields a demonstrable health benefit for veterans, although undoubtedly it benefits the financial well-being of the MA plans,” they write.
It’s a “challenging policy and programmatic conundrum,” the co-authors say, noting that eligible veterans often have military service-related conditions that the VA is uniquely experienced in treating.
“Policies and programs need to be designed and aligned to ensure that veterans have timely access to emergency and other services and that rising community care costs do not jeopardize veterans’ choice to access and use VA services, nor compromise the nationally vital roles of the VA in graduate medical education and other health professional training, research, and emergency preparedness.”
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, > 40% of veterans enrolled by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received care from private practice, mainly for emergency services. Costs associated with that care have shifted from Medicare to the VA to the tune of billions of dollars, according to a recent study published in JAMA Health Forum.
The expenses are a result of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018, which established the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) and allowed the VA to contract with private clinicians. This provided veterans enrolled in both the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare to have 2 government sources of health care financing. The VHA is billed if the veteran receives care at one of its facilities or is referred to a community facility; Medicare is billed only if the veteran is treated for a service not covered by VHA.
These shifts are concerning, according to Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, and Said Ibrahim, MD, MPH. In an accompanying editorial, they outline how the changes affect whether VHA care will have adequate funding to provide care for the additional 740,000 enrollees who have entered the system in the past 2 years.
“This has created a $12 billion medical care budget shortfall for FY 2024,” Kizer and Ibrahim argue. The resulting “substantial budgetary tumult … is adversely impacting the front lines of care delivery at individual VA facilities, leading to delays in hiring caregivers and impeding access to VA care and timely care delivery, as well as greatly straining the traditional roles of VA staff and clinicians trying to manage the challenging cross-system referral processes.”
The study calculated the number of yearly emergency department (ED) visits per 1000 veterans in Medicare overall and by VA ED visits, VA-purchased community ED visits, and Medicare-purchased community ED visits. Estimated total costs shifted from Medicare to the VA after the MISSION Act between 2016 and 2021 were then calculated.
Of the 4,960,189 VA and Medicare enrollees in 2016, 37.0% presented to the ED at least once. Of the 4,837,436 dual enrollees in 2021, 37.6% presented to the ED at least once. ED visits increased 8%, from 820 per 1000 veterans in 2016, to 886 per 1000 veterans in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a dip in ED visits in 2020 by veterans (769 per 1000), but the number rose 2021 (852 per 1000 veterans).
Between 2016 and 2021, the percentage of VA-purchased community ED visits more than doubled, from 8.0% to 21.1%, while Medicare-purchased community ED visits dropped from 65.2% to 52.6%. Patterns were similar among veterans enrolled in traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage (MA). The study estimated that in 2021 at least $2 billion of VA community ED spending was due to payer shift from Medicare.
The shift is “particularly concerning” among veterans enrolled in MA since insurance plans receive capitated payments regardless of actual use of VA- or Medicare-covered services. However, the study’s observational design “limited our ability to infer causality between MISSION Act implementation and payer change.”
The cost shifting is “symptomatic of the fiscally undisciplined implementation of the VCCP and the lack of financially sound policy on payment for VA-Medicare dual enrollees,” according to Drs. Kizer and Ibrahim. “Addressing this matter seems especially important in light of numerous studies showing that the quality of community care often may be inferior to VA care, as well as less timely.”
Kizer and Ibrahim point out that when a veteran who is jointly enrolled in VA and MA plans receives care from the VA, the VA incurs the cost of providing those services even though the MA plan is being paid to provide them. The VA is not allowed to recoup its costs from Medicare. Thus, the government pays twice for the care of the same person.
A recent study reported > $78 billion in duplicate VA-MA spending between 2011 and 2020, with $12 billion in FY 2020. Kizer and Ibrahim suggest the current VA-MA duplicate spending is likely to be significantly more than the reported amounts.
“[No] evidence shows that this duplicate spending yields a demonstrable health benefit for veterans, although undoubtedly it benefits the financial well-being of the MA plans,” they write.
It’s a “challenging policy and programmatic conundrum,” the co-authors say, noting that eligible veterans often have military service-related conditions that the VA is uniquely experienced in treating.
“Policies and programs need to be designed and aligned to ensure that veterans have timely access to emergency and other services and that rising community care costs do not jeopardize veterans’ choice to access and use VA services, nor compromise the nationally vital roles of the VA in graduate medical education and other health professional training, research, and emergency preparedness.”
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, > 40% of veterans enrolled by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) received care from private practice, mainly for emergency services. Costs associated with that care have shifted from Medicare to the VA to the tune of billions of dollars, according to a recent study published in JAMA Health Forum.
The expenses are a result of the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act of 2018, which established the Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP) and allowed the VA to contract with private clinicians. This provided veterans enrolled in both the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Medicare to have 2 government sources of health care financing. The VHA is billed if the veteran receives care at one of its facilities or is referred to a community facility; Medicare is billed only if the veteran is treated for a service not covered by VHA.
These shifts are concerning, according to Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH, and Said Ibrahim, MD, MPH. In an accompanying editorial, they outline how the changes affect whether VHA care will have adequate funding to provide care for the additional 740,000 enrollees who have entered the system in the past 2 years.
“This has created a $12 billion medical care budget shortfall for FY 2024,” Kizer and Ibrahim argue. The resulting “substantial budgetary tumult … is adversely impacting the front lines of care delivery at individual VA facilities, leading to delays in hiring caregivers and impeding access to VA care and timely care delivery, as well as greatly straining the traditional roles of VA staff and clinicians trying to manage the challenging cross-system referral processes.”
The study calculated the number of yearly emergency department (ED) visits per 1000 veterans in Medicare overall and by VA ED visits, VA-purchased community ED visits, and Medicare-purchased community ED visits. Estimated total costs shifted from Medicare to the VA after the MISSION Act between 2016 and 2021 were then calculated.
Of the 4,960,189 VA and Medicare enrollees in 2016, 37.0% presented to the ED at least once. Of the 4,837,436 dual enrollees in 2021, 37.6% presented to the ED at least once. ED visits increased 8%, from 820 per 1000 veterans in 2016, to 886 per 1000 veterans in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a dip in ED visits in 2020 by veterans (769 per 1000), but the number rose 2021 (852 per 1000 veterans).
Between 2016 and 2021, the percentage of VA-purchased community ED visits more than doubled, from 8.0% to 21.1%, while Medicare-purchased community ED visits dropped from 65.2% to 52.6%. Patterns were similar among veterans enrolled in traditional Medicare vs Medicare Advantage (MA). The study estimated that in 2021 at least $2 billion of VA community ED spending was due to payer shift from Medicare.
The shift is “particularly concerning” among veterans enrolled in MA since insurance plans receive capitated payments regardless of actual use of VA- or Medicare-covered services. However, the study’s observational design “limited our ability to infer causality between MISSION Act implementation and payer change.”
The cost shifting is “symptomatic of the fiscally undisciplined implementation of the VCCP and the lack of financially sound policy on payment for VA-Medicare dual enrollees,” according to Drs. Kizer and Ibrahim. “Addressing this matter seems especially important in light of numerous studies showing that the quality of community care often may be inferior to VA care, as well as less timely.”
Kizer and Ibrahim point out that when a veteran who is jointly enrolled in VA and MA plans receives care from the VA, the VA incurs the cost of providing those services even though the MA plan is being paid to provide them. The VA is not allowed to recoup its costs from Medicare. Thus, the government pays twice for the care of the same person.
A recent study reported > $78 billion in duplicate VA-MA spending between 2011 and 2020, with $12 billion in FY 2020. Kizer and Ibrahim suggest the current VA-MA duplicate spending is likely to be significantly more than the reported amounts.
“[No] evidence shows that this duplicate spending yields a demonstrable health benefit for veterans, although undoubtedly it benefits the financial well-being of the MA plans,” they write.
It’s a “challenging policy and programmatic conundrum,” the co-authors say, noting that eligible veterans often have military service-related conditions that the VA is uniquely experienced in treating.
“Policies and programs need to be designed and aligned to ensure that veterans have timely access to emergency and other services and that rising community care costs do not jeopardize veterans’ choice to access and use VA services, nor compromise the nationally vital roles of the VA in graduate medical education and other health professional training, research, and emergency preparedness.”
Hispanic Patients Face Disparities in MASLD
according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
These findings underscore worsening health disparities in MASLD management and outcomes in this patient population, Kaleb Tesfai, BS, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.
Previously, a 2018 meta-analysis found that Hispanic individuals had a higher MASLD prevalence than non-Hispanic White and Black individuals, along with an elevated relative risk of MASH.
“In the setting of the evolving obesity epidemic, prevalence of MASLD has increased and characteristics of patient populations of interest have changed since the time of this prior meta-analysis,” Mr. Tesfai and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Importantly, MASH has become a leading indication for liver transplant, thereby impacting long-term clinical outcomes. As such, accurate, updated prevalence rates and relative risk estimates of MASLD, MASH, advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and clinical outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US remain poorly characterized.”
The present meta-analysis focused specifically on Hispanic adults in the United States; it compared their disease prevalence, severity, and risk to non-Hispanic adults. Twenty-two studies, conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, were included, comprising 756,088 participants, of whom 62,072 were Hispanic.
Study eligibility required reported data on the prevalence of MASLD, MASH, or advanced fibrosis, as well as racial or ethnic subgroup analyses. Studies were excluded if they did not use validated diagnostic methods, such as liver biopsy or imaging, or if they lacked stratification by Hispanic ethnicity. Prevalence estimates and relative risks were calculated using random-effects models. The analysis also accounted for potential confounding factors, including demographic characteristics, metabolic comorbidities, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
The pooled prevalence of MASLD among Hispanic adults was 41% (95% CI, 30%-52%), compared with 27% in non-Hispanic populations, reflecting a relative risk (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.32-1.69). For MASH, the pooled prevalence among Hispanic adults with MASLD was 61% (95% CI, 39%-82%), with an RR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93), compared with non-Hispanic adults.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the worsening health disparities experienced by Hispanic adults in the US, with significant increase in the relative risk of MASLD and MASH in contemporary cohorts compared with prior estimates,” the investigators wrote.
Despite these elevated risks for MASLD and MASH, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis did not show statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
The study also characterized the relationship between SDOH and detected health disparities. Adjustments for factors such as income, education, and health care access eliminated the independent association between Hispanic and MASLD risk, suggesting that these structural inequities play a meaningful role in disease disparities.
Still, genetic factors, including PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 risk alleles, were identified as contributors to the higher disease burden in Hispanic populations.
Mr. Tesfai and colleagues called for prospective studies with standardized outcome definitions to better understand risks of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, as well as long-term clinical outcomes. In addition, they recommended further investigation of SDOH to determine optimal intervention targets.
“Public health initiatives focused on increasing screening for MASLD and MASH and enhancing health care delivery for this high-risk group are critically needed to optimize health outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US,” they concluded.This study was supported by various institutes at the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, and the SDSU-UCSD CREATE Partnership. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Galmed, Pfizer, and others.
according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
These findings underscore worsening health disparities in MASLD management and outcomes in this patient population, Kaleb Tesfai, BS, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.
Previously, a 2018 meta-analysis found that Hispanic individuals had a higher MASLD prevalence than non-Hispanic White and Black individuals, along with an elevated relative risk of MASH.
“In the setting of the evolving obesity epidemic, prevalence of MASLD has increased and characteristics of patient populations of interest have changed since the time of this prior meta-analysis,” Mr. Tesfai and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Importantly, MASH has become a leading indication for liver transplant, thereby impacting long-term clinical outcomes. As such, accurate, updated prevalence rates and relative risk estimates of MASLD, MASH, advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and clinical outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US remain poorly characterized.”
The present meta-analysis focused specifically on Hispanic adults in the United States; it compared their disease prevalence, severity, and risk to non-Hispanic adults. Twenty-two studies, conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, were included, comprising 756,088 participants, of whom 62,072 were Hispanic.
Study eligibility required reported data on the prevalence of MASLD, MASH, or advanced fibrosis, as well as racial or ethnic subgroup analyses. Studies were excluded if they did not use validated diagnostic methods, such as liver biopsy or imaging, or if they lacked stratification by Hispanic ethnicity. Prevalence estimates and relative risks were calculated using random-effects models. The analysis also accounted for potential confounding factors, including demographic characteristics, metabolic comorbidities, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
The pooled prevalence of MASLD among Hispanic adults was 41% (95% CI, 30%-52%), compared with 27% in non-Hispanic populations, reflecting a relative risk (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.32-1.69). For MASH, the pooled prevalence among Hispanic adults with MASLD was 61% (95% CI, 39%-82%), with an RR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93), compared with non-Hispanic adults.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the worsening health disparities experienced by Hispanic adults in the US, with significant increase in the relative risk of MASLD and MASH in contemporary cohorts compared with prior estimates,” the investigators wrote.
Despite these elevated risks for MASLD and MASH, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis did not show statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
The study also characterized the relationship between SDOH and detected health disparities. Adjustments for factors such as income, education, and health care access eliminated the independent association between Hispanic and MASLD risk, suggesting that these structural inequities play a meaningful role in disease disparities.
Still, genetic factors, including PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 risk alleles, were identified as contributors to the higher disease burden in Hispanic populations.
Mr. Tesfai and colleagues called for prospective studies with standardized outcome definitions to better understand risks of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, as well as long-term clinical outcomes. In addition, they recommended further investigation of SDOH to determine optimal intervention targets.
“Public health initiatives focused on increasing screening for MASLD and MASH and enhancing health care delivery for this high-risk group are critically needed to optimize health outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US,” they concluded.This study was supported by various institutes at the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, and the SDSU-UCSD CREATE Partnership. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Galmed, Pfizer, and others.
according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.
These findings underscore worsening health disparities in MASLD management and outcomes in this patient population, Kaleb Tesfai, BS, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.
Previously, a 2018 meta-analysis found that Hispanic individuals had a higher MASLD prevalence than non-Hispanic White and Black individuals, along with an elevated relative risk of MASH.
“In the setting of the evolving obesity epidemic, prevalence of MASLD has increased and characteristics of patient populations of interest have changed since the time of this prior meta-analysis,” Mr. Tesfai and colleagues wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Importantly, MASH has become a leading indication for liver transplant, thereby impacting long-term clinical outcomes. As such, accurate, updated prevalence rates and relative risk estimates of MASLD, MASH, advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, and clinical outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US remain poorly characterized.”
The present meta-analysis focused specifically on Hispanic adults in the United States; it compared their disease prevalence, severity, and risk to non-Hispanic adults. Twenty-two studies, conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2023, were included, comprising 756,088 participants, of whom 62,072 were Hispanic.
Study eligibility required reported data on the prevalence of MASLD, MASH, or advanced fibrosis, as well as racial or ethnic subgroup analyses. Studies were excluded if they did not use validated diagnostic methods, such as liver biopsy or imaging, or if they lacked stratification by Hispanic ethnicity. Prevalence estimates and relative risks were calculated using random-effects models. The analysis also accounted for potential confounding factors, including demographic characteristics, metabolic comorbidities, and social determinants of health (SDOH).
The pooled prevalence of MASLD among Hispanic adults was 41% (95% CI, 30%-52%), compared with 27% in non-Hispanic populations, reflecting a relative risk (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI, 1.32-1.69). For MASH, the pooled prevalence among Hispanic adults with MASLD was 61% (95% CI, 39%-82%), with an RR of 1.42 (95% CI, 1.04-1.93), compared with non-Hispanic adults.
“Our systematic review and meta-analysis highlights the worsening health disparities experienced by Hispanic adults in the US, with significant increase in the relative risk of MASLD and MASH in contemporary cohorts compared with prior estimates,” the investigators wrote.
Despite these elevated risks for MASLD and MASH, advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis did not show statistically significant differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations.
The study also characterized the relationship between SDOH and detected health disparities. Adjustments for factors such as income, education, and health care access eliminated the independent association between Hispanic and MASLD risk, suggesting that these structural inequities play a meaningful role in disease disparities.
Still, genetic factors, including PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 risk alleles, were identified as contributors to the higher disease burden in Hispanic populations.
Mr. Tesfai and colleagues called for prospective studies with standardized outcome definitions to better understand risks of advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis, as well as long-term clinical outcomes. In addition, they recommended further investigation of SDOH to determine optimal intervention targets.
“Public health initiatives focused on increasing screening for MASLD and MASH and enhancing health care delivery for this high-risk group are critically needed to optimize health outcomes for Hispanic adults in the US,” they concluded.This study was supported by various institutes at the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, and the SDSU-UCSD CREATE Partnership. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Galmed, Pfizer, and others.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
AGA Clinical Practice Update: P-CABs Can Help When PPI Therapy Fails
, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.
“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”
The update was published in Gastroenterology .
P-CAB Developments
For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.
Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.
In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.
Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.
In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote.
For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.
For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.
For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.
For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.
“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.
“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”
The update was published in Gastroenterology .
P-CAB Developments
For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.
Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.
In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.
Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.
In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote.
For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.
For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.
For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.
For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.
“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a recent clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
However, P-CABs are recommended in place of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for most patients with Helicobacter pylori and other conditions where patients haven’t responded to PPIs.
“P-CABs are a newer medication class now available in the US, associated with more rapid, potent, and prolonged gastric acid inhibition than PPI formulations,” said lead author Amit Patel, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Duke University School of Medicine and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
“P-CABs have potentially significant clinical benefits in the management of Helicobacter pylori infection and GERD, particularly more severe erosive esophagitis,” he said. “Emerging data are affording additional insights into the clinical benefits of P-CABs in settings such as on-demand therapy for reflux-associated symptoms, bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers, and endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus.”
The update was published in Gastroenterology .
P-CAB Developments
For most patients, PPIs and histamine-2 receptor antagonists remain the primary way to inhibit gastric acid secretion for common upper gastrointestinal conditions, the authors wrote. However, P-CABs such as vonoprazan and tegoprazan may provide relief when PPIs have limitations.
Unlike PPIs, P-CABs are considered acid-stable, don’t require premeal dosing, aren’t prodrugs, and don’t require conversion to an active form to provide pharmacologic effects. They tend to have longer half-lives and more rapid onset. Serum gastrin levels typically remain higher with P-CABs.
In terms of safety, randomized trial data indicate that P-CABs are generally well tolerated and have short-term and medium-term safety similar to PPIs. Due to potent acid suppression, enteric infection risks remain higher, though long-term safety data is needed, the authors wrote.
Overall, P-CABs appear to be equally as potent or more potent than PPIs, though more potent acid inhibition isn’t necessarily associated with better outcomes, the authors wrote. For most foregut acid-related disorders — such as heartburn and prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–associated ulcers — P-CABs can help when patients fail PPI therapy.
In general, though, nonclinical factors related to cost, barriers to obtaining medication, and limited long-term safety data may outweigh the advantages of P-CABs, especially if clinical superiority isn’t yet known, the authors wrote.
For GERD, clinicians generally shouldn’t use P-CABs as first-line therapy for patients with uninvestigated heartburn symptoms or nonerosive reflux disease. However, P-CABs should be used for those with documented acid-related reflux who fail therapy with twice-daily PPIs. They may also be appropriate for on-demand heartburn therapy, although more evidence is needed.
For erosive esophagitis, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used for milder cases but can be considered for patients with more severe cases that haven’t responded to PPIs, including refractory esophagitis.
For H pylori, P-CABs should be used in place of PPIs for eradication regimens, including among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains. In contrast with most of the other indications in the update, the short-term duration of H pylori treatment reduced the authors’ concerns about P-CAB costs and safety.
For peptic ulcer disease, P-CABs generally shouldn’t be used as first-line treatment or prophylaxis. However, the rapid onset and potent acid inhibition could be useful for patients with bleeding gastroduodenal ulcers and high-risk stigmata.
“Emerging data will allow refinements in the populations and clinical settings for which P-CABs at various doses may be considered and advised — and may reveal more clinical scenarios in which they can provide meaningful benefit,” Patel said. “Further investigations, including additional populations and novel indicators, as well as evaluating long-term safety data and cost-effectiveness, are warranted, as P-CABs are incorporated more broadly into clinical practice worldwide.”
The authors received no specific funding for this update. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Liver Stiffness Measurement Predicts Long-Term Outcomes In Pediatric Biliary Atresia
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that LSM may serve as a noninvasive tool for risk stratification and treatment planning in this population, reported lead author Jean P. Molleston, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“Biliary atresia is frequently complicated by hepatic fibrosis with progression to cirrhosis and portal hypertension manifested by ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and variceal bleeding,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “The ability to predict these outcomes can inform clinical decision-making.”
To this end, VCTE has been gaining increasing support in the pediatric setting.
“Advantages of VCTE over liver biopsy include convenience, cost, sampling bias, and risk,” the investigators wrote. “VCTE potentially allows (1) fibrosis estimation, (2) prediction of portal hypertension complications/survival, and (3) ability to noninvasively monitor liver stiffness as a fibrosis surrogate.”
The present multicenter study aimed to gauge the prognostic utility of VCTE among 254 patients, aged 21 years or younger, with biliary atresia. All patients had a valid baseline LSM, plus longitudinal clinical and laboratory data drawn from studies by the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN). Liver stiffness was assessed noninvasively with FibroScan devices, adhering to protocols that required at least 10 valid measurements and a variability of less than 30%.
The primary outcomes were survival with native liver (SNL), defined as the time to liver transplantation or death, and a composite measure of liver-related events, including the first occurrence of transplantation, death, ascites, variceal bleeding, or hepatopulmonary syndrome. Secondary outcomes focused on the trajectory of platelet decline, a marker of disease progression. The study also explored the relationship between baseline LSM and conventional biomarkers, including platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
LSM was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes. Specifically, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in 5-year SNL across LSM strata (P < .001). Children with LSM values less than 10 kPa had excellent 5-year SNL rates (LSM 10 to < 15 kPa, 88.9%; 95% CI, 75.1-95.3%), while those with LSM of at least 15 kPa exhibited substantially lower 5-year SNL (58.9%; 95% CI, 46.0-69.7%).
Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) rates declined as LSM values increased (P < .001). Participants with LSM less than 10 kPa had a 5-year EFS rate of 92.2% versus with 61.2% for those with LSM of at least 15 kPa.
LSM also predicted platelet decline. For every twofold increase in baseline LSM, platelet counts declined by an additional 4,000/mm3 per year (P < .001). This association was illustrated through predicted trajectories for participants with LSM values of 4, 7, 12, 18, and 42 kPa, corresponding to different percentiles of disease severity.
Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that a two-fold increase in LSM was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (P < .001) for liver transplant or death. While LSM had good discrimination on its own (C statistic = 0.83), it did not significantly improve predictive accuracy when added to models based on platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
“This noninvasive measurement could potentially be used to predict natural history, stratify patients for clinical trials, plan interventions, and provide anticipatory guidance,” Molleston and colleagues concluded. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; Childhood Liver Disease Research Network; and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Grading liver stiffness using elastography is a widely utilized tool in adult populations, and its application is expanding in pediatric hepatology clinics. Clinicians incorporate liver stiffness measurements (LSM) alongside clinical findings and biochemical markers to noninvasively assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Molleston and colleagues leveraged the robust data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases–supported network ChiLDReN and found that LSM in children with biliary atresia (BA) correlate with the progression to complications associated with portal hypertension and liver transplantation. While these findings are not unexpected, this compelling investigation accomplishes the important function of validating the utility of elastography in this cohort.
Prognosticating the timeline of complications stemming from biliary atresia is a central tenet of pediatric hepatology. Helping families understand what the future may hold for their child is critical in fostering long-term relationships between clinicians and caregivers. Furthermore, establishing clear expectations regarding follow-up care and monitoring is beneficial for both providers and patients. Of particular importance is minimizing the need for invasive procedures, such as liver biopsy, which, while relatively safe, remains burdensome and is rarely used to assess fibrosis in BA.
Pediatric hepatologists already consider multiple factors — including age at hepatoportoenterostomy, subsequent clearance of cholestasis, exam findings such as splenomegaly, and platelet count — to predict the clinical course of infants with BA. The addition of a data-driven approach to interpreting liver stiffness measurements represents a valuable new tool in this expanding repertoire, offering an encouraging prospect for both providers and families navigating the complexities of pediatric liver disease.
Aaron Bennett, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Elizabeth B. Rand, MD, is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program, director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, and director of the Advanced Transplant Hepatology Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Grading liver stiffness using elastography is a widely utilized tool in adult populations, and its application is expanding in pediatric hepatology clinics. Clinicians incorporate liver stiffness measurements (LSM) alongside clinical findings and biochemical markers to noninvasively assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Molleston and colleagues leveraged the robust data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases–supported network ChiLDReN and found that LSM in children with biliary atresia (BA) correlate with the progression to complications associated with portal hypertension and liver transplantation. While these findings are not unexpected, this compelling investigation accomplishes the important function of validating the utility of elastography in this cohort.
Prognosticating the timeline of complications stemming from biliary atresia is a central tenet of pediatric hepatology. Helping families understand what the future may hold for their child is critical in fostering long-term relationships between clinicians and caregivers. Furthermore, establishing clear expectations regarding follow-up care and monitoring is beneficial for both providers and patients. Of particular importance is minimizing the need for invasive procedures, such as liver biopsy, which, while relatively safe, remains burdensome and is rarely used to assess fibrosis in BA.
Pediatric hepatologists already consider multiple factors — including age at hepatoportoenterostomy, subsequent clearance of cholestasis, exam findings such as splenomegaly, and platelet count — to predict the clinical course of infants with BA. The addition of a data-driven approach to interpreting liver stiffness measurements represents a valuable new tool in this expanding repertoire, offering an encouraging prospect for both providers and families navigating the complexities of pediatric liver disease.
Aaron Bennett, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Elizabeth B. Rand, MD, is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program, director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, and director of the Advanced Transplant Hepatology Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Grading liver stiffness using elastography is a widely utilized tool in adult populations, and its application is expanding in pediatric hepatology clinics. Clinicians incorporate liver stiffness measurements (LSM) alongside clinical findings and biochemical markers to noninvasively assess the degree of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. Molleston and colleagues leveraged the robust data from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases–supported network ChiLDReN and found that LSM in children with biliary atresia (BA) correlate with the progression to complications associated with portal hypertension and liver transplantation. While these findings are not unexpected, this compelling investigation accomplishes the important function of validating the utility of elastography in this cohort.
Prognosticating the timeline of complications stemming from biliary atresia is a central tenet of pediatric hepatology. Helping families understand what the future may hold for their child is critical in fostering long-term relationships between clinicians and caregivers. Furthermore, establishing clear expectations regarding follow-up care and monitoring is beneficial for both providers and patients. Of particular importance is minimizing the need for invasive procedures, such as liver biopsy, which, while relatively safe, remains burdensome and is rarely used to assess fibrosis in BA.
Pediatric hepatologists already consider multiple factors — including age at hepatoportoenterostomy, subsequent clearance of cholestasis, exam findings such as splenomegaly, and platelet count — to predict the clinical course of infants with BA. The addition of a data-driven approach to interpreting liver stiffness measurements represents a valuable new tool in this expanding repertoire, offering an encouraging prospect for both providers and families navigating the complexities of pediatric liver disease.
Aaron Bennett, MD, is a fellow in the Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. Elizabeth B. Rand, MD, is the medical director of the Liver Transplant Program, director of the Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, and director of the Advanced Transplant Hepatology Program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that LSM may serve as a noninvasive tool for risk stratification and treatment planning in this population, reported lead author Jean P. Molleston, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“Biliary atresia is frequently complicated by hepatic fibrosis with progression to cirrhosis and portal hypertension manifested by ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and variceal bleeding,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “The ability to predict these outcomes can inform clinical decision-making.”
To this end, VCTE has been gaining increasing support in the pediatric setting.
“Advantages of VCTE over liver biopsy include convenience, cost, sampling bias, and risk,” the investigators wrote. “VCTE potentially allows (1) fibrosis estimation, (2) prediction of portal hypertension complications/survival, and (3) ability to noninvasively monitor liver stiffness as a fibrosis surrogate.”
The present multicenter study aimed to gauge the prognostic utility of VCTE among 254 patients, aged 21 years or younger, with biliary atresia. All patients had a valid baseline LSM, plus longitudinal clinical and laboratory data drawn from studies by the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN). Liver stiffness was assessed noninvasively with FibroScan devices, adhering to protocols that required at least 10 valid measurements and a variability of less than 30%.
The primary outcomes were survival with native liver (SNL), defined as the time to liver transplantation or death, and a composite measure of liver-related events, including the first occurrence of transplantation, death, ascites, variceal bleeding, or hepatopulmonary syndrome. Secondary outcomes focused on the trajectory of platelet decline, a marker of disease progression. The study also explored the relationship between baseline LSM and conventional biomarkers, including platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
LSM was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes. Specifically, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in 5-year SNL across LSM strata (P < .001). Children with LSM values less than 10 kPa had excellent 5-year SNL rates (LSM 10 to < 15 kPa, 88.9%; 95% CI, 75.1-95.3%), while those with LSM of at least 15 kPa exhibited substantially lower 5-year SNL (58.9%; 95% CI, 46.0-69.7%).
Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) rates declined as LSM values increased (P < .001). Participants with LSM less than 10 kPa had a 5-year EFS rate of 92.2% versus with 61.2% for those with LSM of at least 15 kPa.
LSM also predicted platelet decline. For every twofold increase in baseline LSM, platelet counts declined by an additional 4,000/mm3 per year (P < .001). This association was illustrated through predicted trajectories for participants with LSM values of 4, 7, 12, 18, and 42 kPa, corresponding to different percentiles of disease severity.
Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that a two-fold increase in LSM was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (P < .001) for liver transplant or death. While LSM had good discrimination on its own (C statistic = 0.83), it did not significantly improve predictive accuracy when added to models based on platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
“This noninvasive measurement could potentially be used to predict natural history, stratify patients for clinical trials, plan interventions, and provide anticipatory guidance,” Molleston and colleagues concluded. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; Childhood Liver Disease Research Network; and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
according to investigators.
These findings suggest that LSM may serve as a noninvasive tool for risk stratification and treatment planning in this population, reported lead author Jean P. Molleston, MD, of Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, and colleagues.
“Biliary atresia is frequently complicated by hepatic fibrosis with progression to cirrhosis and portal hypertension manifested by ascites, hepatopulmonary syndrome, and variceal bleeding,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “The ability to predict these outcomes can inform clinical decision-making.”
To this end, VCTE has been gaining increasing support in the pediatric setting.
“Advantages of VCTE over liver biopsy include convenience, cost, sampling bias, and risk,” the investigators wrote. “VCTE potentially allows (1) fibrosis estimation, (2) prediction of portal hypertension complications/survival, and (3) ability to noninvasively monitor liver stiffness as a fibrosis surrogate.”
The present multicenter study aimed to gauge the prognostic utility of VCTE among 254 patients, aged 21 years or younger, with biliary atresia. All patients had a valid baseline LSM, plus longitudinal clinical and laboratory data drawn from studies by the Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN). Liver stiffness was assessed noninvasively with FibroScan devices, adhering to protocols that required at least 10 valid measurements and a variability of less than 30%.
The primary outcomes were survival with native liver (SNL), defined as the time to liver transplantation or death, and a composite measure of liver-related events, including the first occurrence of transplantation, death, ascites, variceal bleeding, or hepatopulmonary syndrome. Secondary outcomes focused on the trajectory of platelet decline, a marker of disease progression. The study also explored the relationship between baseline LSM and conventional biomarkers, including platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
LSM was a strong predictor of long-term outcomes. Specifically, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant differences in 5-year SNL across LSM strata (P < .001). Children with LSM values less than 10 kPa had excellent 5-year SNL rates (LSM 10 to < 15 kPa, 88.9%; 95% CI, 75.1-95.3%), while those with LSM of at least 15 kPa exhibited substantially lower 5-year SNL (58.9%; 95% CI, 46.0-69.7%).
Similarly, event-free survival (EFS) rates declined as LSM values increased (P < .001). Participants with LSM less than 10 kPa had a 5-year EFS rate of 92.2% versus with 61.2% for those with LSM of at least 15 kPa.
LSM also predicted platelet decline. For every twofold increase in baseline LSM, platelet counts declined by an additional 4,000/mm3 per year (P < .001). This association was illustrated through predicted trajectories for participants with LSM values of 4, 7, 12, 18, and 42 kPa, corresponding to different percentiles of disease severity.
Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that a two-fold increase in LSM was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.3 (P < .001) for liver transplant or death. While LSM had good discrimination on its own (C statistic = 0.83), it did not significantly improve predictive accuracy when added to models based on platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin.
“This noninvasive measurement could potentially be used to predict natural history, stratify patients for clinical trials, plan interventions, and provide anticipatory guidance,” Molleston and colleagues concluded. This study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases; National Institutes of Health; Childhood Liver Disease Research Network; and others. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Lipophilic Statins May Protect Against HCC In Select Liver Disease Patients
according to investigators.
These findings also pave the way for new research into targeted therapies, personalized prevention strategies, and broader applications in high-risk populations, Erik Almazan, MD, and Raymond T. Chung, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, reported.
“Statins, metformin, and aspirin are low-cost medications often prescribed for the management of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome that have been associated with reduced HCC risk, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Despite these findings, few studies have focused on populations in the US or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV).”
To address this knowledge gap, Almazan and Chung retrospectively analyzed data from 3,677 patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, drawn from the All of Us Controlled Tier Dataset v7, which spans May 2018 to July 2022.
Within this population, 94 patients had HCC, while 3,583 served as controls. Lipophilic statin use was compared with hydrophilic statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for confounders including age, sex, race, and the presence of HBV or HCV.
Participants in the HCC cohort were older (mean age, 64 vs 58 years), more likely to be male (64.1% vs 50.0%), and had higher rates of chronic HBV (9.6% vs 2.5%) and chronic HCV (36.2% vs. 20.5%) compared to controls (P ≤ .01).
As a class, lipophilic statins were associated with a 36% reduced risk of HCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00; P < .05). Specifically, atorvastatin was associated with a 41% reduced risk (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93; P = .02), while simvastatin was associated with a 54% reduced risk (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = .04).
In contrast, hydrophilic statins, such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin, showed no significant association with HCC risk. Similarly, no protective association was observed for metformin or aspirin.
These findings suggest that lipophilic statins could provide a practical and cost-effective strategy for HCC prevention, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome or alcohol-related liver disease, according to Almazan and Chung. These high-risk groups often lack accessible and noninvasive prevention options, further highlighting the clinical relevance of these results.
The investigators proposed that the chemopreventive effects of lipophilic statins may be linked to their ability to passively diffuse into cells and modulate pathways involved in cancer development, such as the mevalonate pathway. These potential mechanisms remain poorly understood.
Almazan and Chung also pointed out several study limitations, including lack of granular data on statin doses and treatment duration, absence of serologic and imaging confirmation of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, and a study cohort drawn from populations historically underrepresented in medical research, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader US population.
“Nevertheless, we believe that our study adds valuable information to the literature on statin use and its association with HCC with data from a US-based sample inclusive of individuals with risk factors other than HBV and HCV,” the investigators wrote. “These results provide further support for trials (such as NCT05028829) evaluating the utility of lipophilic statins for chemoprevention in HCC for persons at risk.”This study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence continues to increase in the United States. Because of its poor prognosis and limited treatment options, prevention strategies are critically needed, yet there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for HCC prevention. In the United States, metabolic syndrome has a high prevalence and is a significant contributor to HCC burden. Many individuals with metabolic syndrome are eligible for statin therapy, which has been associated with HCC chemoprevention. Evidence suggests that lipophilic statins may be more effective chemopreventive agents than hydrophilic statins. However, previous studies have largely focused on populations with hepatitis C virus, making it unclear whether these findings are generalizable to individuals with other liver disease etiologies.
Our findings support the chemopreventive potential of lipophilic statins in patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, regardless of the underlying cause. If lipophilic statins are confirmed as effective chemopreventive agents, HCC prevention could begin in the primary care setting. For example, primary care providers treating patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication for statin therapy could select treatment with lipophilic statins over hydrophilic statins. This approach would be cost-effective, relatively simple to implement, and benefit many patients, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at higher risk.
Large-scale clinical trials and basic science studies are necessary to confirm the role of lipophilic statins in HCC prevention. Supporting precision medicine initiatives like the All of Us Research Program could help identify individuals most likely to benefit and address gaps in current HCC prevention strategies.
Erik Almazan, MD, is a resident physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Raymond T. Chung, MD, is director of the Hepatology and Liver Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. They have no conflicts to disclose.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence continues to increase in the United States. Because of its poor prognosis and limited treatment options, prevention strategies are critically needed, yet there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for HCC prevention. In the United States, metabolic syndrome has a high prevalence and is a significant contributor to HCC burden. Many individuals with metabolic syndrome are eligible for statin therapy, which has been associated with HCC chemoprevention. Evidence suggests that lipophilic statins may be more effective chemopreventive agents than hydrophilic statins. However, previous studies have largely focused on populations with hepatitis C virus, making it unclear whether these findings are generalizable to individuals with other liver disease etiologies.
Our findings support the chemopreventive potential of lipophilic statins in patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, regardless of the underlying cause. If lipophilic statins are confirmed as effective chemopreventive agents, HCC prevention could begin in the primary care setting. For example, primary care providers treating patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication for statin therapy could select treatment with lipophilic statins over hydrophilic statins. This approach would be cost-effective, relatively simple to implement, and benefit many patients, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at higher risk.
Large-scale clinical trials and basic science studies are necessary to confirm the role of lipophilic statins in HCC prevention. Supporting precision medicine initiatives like the All of Us Research Program could help identify individuals most likely to benefit and address gaps in current HCC prevention strategies.
Erik Almazan, MD, is a resident physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Raymond T. Chung, MD, is director of the Hepatology and Liver Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. They have no conflicts to disclose.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence continues to increase in the United States. Because of its poor prognosis and limited treatment options, prevention strategies are critically needed, yet there are no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments for HCC prevention. In the United States, metabolic syndrome has a high prevalence and is a significant contributor to HCC burden. Many individuals with metabolic syndrome are eligible for statin therapy, which has been associated with HCC chemoprevention. Evidence suggests that lipophilic statins may be more effective chemopreventive agents than hydrophilic statins. However, previous studies have largely focused on populations with hepatitis C virus, making it unclear whether these findings are generalizable to individuals with other liver disease etiologies.
Our findings support the chemopreventive potential of lipophilic statins in patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, regardless of the underlying cause. If lipophilic statins are confirmed as effective chemopreventive agents, HCC prevention could begin in the primary care setting. For example, primary care providers treating patients with metabolic syndrome and an indication for statin therapy could select treatment with lipophilic statins over hydrophilic statins. This approach would be cost-effective, relatively simple to implement, and benefit many patients, including those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who are at higher risk.
Large-scale clinical trials and basic science studies are necessary to confirm the role of lipophilic statins in HCC prevention. Supporting precision medicine initiatives like the All of Us Research Program could help identify individuals most likely to benefit and address gaps in current HCC prevention strategies.
Erik Almazan, MD, is a resident physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Raymond T. Chung, MD, is director of the Hepatology and Liver Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston. They have no conflicts to disclose.
according to investigators.
These findings also pave the way for new research into targeted therapies, personalized prevention strategies, and broader applications in high-risk populations, Erik Almazan, MD, and Raymond T. Chung, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, reported.
“Statins, metformin, and aspirin are low-cost medications often prescribed for the management of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome that have been associated with reduced HCC risk, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Despite these findings, few studies have focused on populations in the US or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV).”
To address this knowledge gap, Almazan and Chung retrospectively analyzed data from 3,677 patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, drawn from the All of Us Controlled Tier Dataset v7, which spans May 2018 to July 2022.
Within this population, 94 patients had HCC, while 3,583 served as controls. Lipophilic statin use was compared with hydrophilic statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for confounders including age, sex, race, and the presence of HBV or HCV.
Participants in the HCC cohort were older (mean age, 64 vs 58 years), more likely to be male (64.1% vs 50.0%), and had higher rates of chronic HBV (9.6% vs 2.5%) and chronic HCV (36.2% vs. 20.5%) compared to controls (P ≤ .01).
As a class, lipophilic statins were associated with a 36% reduced risk of HCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00; P < .05). Specifically, atorvastatin was associated with a 41% reduced risk (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93; P = .02), while simvastatin was associated with a 54% reduced risk (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = .04).
In contrast, hydrophilic statins, such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin, showed no significant association with HCC risk. Similarly, no protective association was observed for metformin or aspirin.
These findings suggest that lipophilic statins could provide a practical and cost-effective strategy for HCC prevention, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome or alcohol-related liver disease, according to Almazan and Chung. These high-risk groups often lack accessible and noninvasive prevention options, further highlighting the clinical relevance of these results.
The investigators proposed that the chemopreventive effects of lipophilic statins may be linked to their ability to passively diffuse into cells and modulate pathways involved in cancer development, such as the mevalonate pathway. These potential mechanisms remain poorly understood.
Almazan and Chung also pointed out several study limitations, including lack of granular data on statin doses and treatment duration, absence of serologic and imaging confirmation of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, and a study cohort drawn from populations historically underrepresented in medical research, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader US population.
“Nevertheless, we believe that our study adds valuable information to the literature on statin use and its association with HCC with data from a US-based sample inclusive of individuals with risk factors other than HBV and HCV,” the investigators wrote. “These results provide further support for trials (such as NCT05028829) evaluating the utility of lipophilic statins for chemoprevention in HCC for persons at risk.”This study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
according to investigators.
These findings also pave the way for new research into targeted therapies, personalized prevention strategies, and broader applications in high-risk populations, Erik Almazan, MD, and Raymond T. Chung, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, reported.
“Statins, metformin, and aspirin are low-cost medications often prescribed for the management of diseases associated with metabolic syndrome that have been associated with reduced HCC risk, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Despite these findings, few studies have focused on populations in the US or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV).”
To address this knowledge gap, Almazan and Chung retrospectively analyzed data from 3,677 patients with hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, drawn from the All of Us Controlled Tier Dataset v7, which spans May 2018 to July 2022.
Within this population, 94 patients had HCC, while 3,583 served as controls. Lipophilic statin use was compared with hydrophilic statins, metformin, and aspirin. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for confounders including age, sex, race, and the presence of HBV or HCV.
Participants in the HCC cohort were older (mean age, 64 vs 58 years), more likely to be male (64.1% vs 50.0%), and had higher rates of chronic HBV (9.6% vs 2.5%) and chronic HCV (36.2% vs. 20.5%) compared to controls (P ≤ .01).
As a class, lipophilic statins were associated with a 36% reduced risk of HCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.00; P < .05). Specifically, atorvastatin was associated with a 41% reduced risk (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.93; P = .02), while simvastatin was associated with a 54% reduced risk (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97; P = .04).
In contrast, hydrophilic statins, such as pravastatin and rosuvastatin, showed no significant association with HCC risk. Similarly, no protective association was observed for metformin or aspirin.
These findings suggest that lipophilic statins could provide a practical and cost-effective strategy for HCC prevention, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome or alcohol-related liver disease, according to Almazan and Chung. These high-risk groups often lack accessible and noninvasive prevention options, further highlighting the clinical relevance of these results.
The investigators proposed that the chemopreventive effects of lipophilic statins may be linked to their ability to passively diffuse into cells and modulate pathways involved in cancer development, such as the mevalonate pathway. These potential mechanisms remain poorly understood.
Almazan and Chung also pointed out several study limitations, including lack of granular data on statin doses and treatment duration, absence of serologic and imaging confirmation of hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis, and a study cohort drawn from populations historically underrepresented in medical research, potentially limiting generalizability to the broader US population.
“Nevertheless, we believe that our study adds valuable information to the literature on statin use and its association with HCC with data from a US-based sample inclusive of individuals with risk factors other than HBV and HCV,” the investigators wrote. “These results provide further support for trials (such as NCT05028829) evaluating the utility of lipophilic statins for chemoprevention in HCC for persons at risk.”This study was supported by various National Institutes of Health grants. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Areas of Hope Offered in 2024 VA Suicide Report
Suicide was the 12th-leading cause of death for veterans in 2022. However, fewer veterans died by suicide in 2022 than in 12 of the previous 14 years, according to the 2024 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The review is the most comprehensive national report on veteran suicide and is based on verified data from the Centers for Disease Control and US Department of Defense from 2001-2022, or the most recent years the VA has data.
The report states that 6407 veterans died by suicide in 2022, 3 more than the year before. For comparison, 41,484 nonveteran US adults died by suicide in 2022, 1476 more than 2021. It is important to assess suicide mortality rates in the context of population changes, the report cautions. From 2001-2022, the veteran population dropped from 25.8 million to 18.5 million, a 28.4% decrease. During that same period, the nonveteran US adult population increased from 186.5 million to 242.4 million, a 30.0% jump.
On average, 131 US adults died by suicide each day in 2022: 18 veterans and 114 nonveterans. Among all US adults, including veterans, the average number of suicides per day rose from 81 per day in 2001 to 131 per day in 2022. The average number of veteran suicides per day rose from 16.5 in 2001 to 17.6 in 2022.
“Hope serves an important role within suicide prevention efforts,” the VA said. “Within the challenges faced in 2022, key areas of hope emerged.”
Among those key findings are a 24.1% decrease in age-adjusted suicide rates, a 37% suicide rate reduction among individuals who received VA homeless program services, 3.8% suicide rate decrease in veterans aged 18 to 34 years, and considerable drops in suicide rates for veterans with Veterans Health Administration mental health diagnoses of anxiety (36.1%), depression (34.5%), posttraumatic stress disorder (31.6%), and alcohol use disorder (13.7%).
Eliminating veteran suicide is VA’s top clinical priority and a critical aspect of the strategy for reducing military and veteran suicide. Since 2022, VA has worked aggressively to expand support, including offering no-cost health care to veterans in suicidal crisis; launching the 988 (then press 1) hotline, qualified responders through the Veterans Crisis Line; expanding firearm suicide prevention efforts; and encouraging veterans to reach out for help through a national veteran suicide prevention awareness campaign.
“There is nothing more important to VA than ending veteran suicide,“ said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough. “We will learn from this report to better serve veterans and save lives.”
Suicide was the 12th-leading cause of death for veterans in 2022. However, fewer veterans died by suicide in 2022 than in 12 of the previous 14 years, according to the 2024 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The review is the most comprehensive national report on veteran suicide and is based on verified data from the Centers for Disease Control and US Department of Defense from 2001-2022, or the most recent years the VA has data.
The report states that 6407 veterans died by suicide in 2022, 3 more than the year before. For comparison, 41,484 nonveteran US adults died by suicide in 2022, 1476 more than 2021. It is important to assess suicide mortality rates in the context of population changes, the report cautions. From 2001-2022, the veteran population dropped from 25.8 million to 18.5 million, a 28.4% decrease. During that same period, the nonveteran US adult population increased from 186.5 million to 242.4 million, a 30.0% jump.
On average, 131 US adults died by suicide each day in 2022: 18 veterans and 114 nonveterans. Among all US adults, including veterans, the average number of suicides per day rose from 81 per day in 2001 to 131 per day in 2022. The average number of veteran suicides per day rose from 16.5 in 2001 to 17.6 in 2022.
“Hope serves an important role within suicide prevention efforts,” the VA said. “Within the challenges faced in 2022, key areas of hope emerged.”
Among those key findings are a 24.1% decrease in age-adjusted suicide rates, a 37% suicide rate reduction among individuals who received VA homeless program services, 3.8% suicide rate decrease in veterans aged 18 to 34 years, and considerable drops in suicide rates for veterans with Veterans Health Administration mental health diagnoses of anxiety (36.1%), depression (34.5%), posttraumatic stress disorder (31.6%), and alcohol use disorder (13.7%).
Eliminating veteran suicide is VA’s top clinical priority and a critical aspect of the strategy for reducing military and veteran suicide. Since 2022, VA has worked aggressively to expand support, including offering no-cost health care to veterans in suicidal crisis; launching the 988 (then press 1) hotline, qualified responders through the Veterans Crisis Line; expanding firearm suicide prevention efforts; and encouraging veterans to reach out for help through a national veteran suicide prevention awareness campaign.
“There is nothing more important to VA than ending veteran suicide,“ said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough. “We will learn from this report to better serve veterans and save lives.”
Suicide was the 12th-leading cause of death for veterans in 2022. However, fewer veterans died by suicide in 2022 than in 12 of the previous 14 years, according to the 2024 National Veteran Suicide Prevention Annual Report released by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The review is the most comprehensive national report on veteran suicide and is based on verified data from the Centers for Disease Control and US Department of Defense from 2001-2022, or the most recent years the VA has data.
The report states that 6407 veterans died by suicide in 2022, 3 more than the year before. For comparison, 41,484 nonveteran US adults died by suicide in 2022, 1476 more than 2021. It is important to assess suicide mortality rates in the context of population changes, the report cautions. From 2001-2022, the veteran population dropped from 25.8 million to 18.5 million, a 28.4% decrease. During that same period, the nonveteran US adult population increased from 186.5 million to 242.4 million, a 30.0% jump.
On average, 131 US adults died by suicide each day in 2022: 18 veterans and 114 nonveterans. Among all US adults, including veterans, the average number of suicides per day rose from 81 per day in 2001 to 131 per day in 2022. The average number of veteran suicides per day rose from 16.5 in 2001 to 17.6 in 2022.
“Hope serves an important role within suicide prevention efforts,” the VA said. “Within the challenges faced in 2022, key areas of hope emerged.”
Among those key findings are a 24.1% decrease in age-adjusted suicide rates, a 37% suicide rate reduction among individuals who received VA homeless program services, 3.8% suicide rate decrease in veterans aged 18 to 34 years, and considerable drops in suicide rates for veterans with Veterans Health Administration mental health diagnoses of anxiety (36.1%), depression (34.5%), posttraumatic stress disorder (31.6%), and alcohol use disorder (13.7%).
Eliminating veteran suicide is VA’s top clinical priority and a critical aspect of the strategy for reducing military and veteran suicide. Since 2022, VA has worked aggressively to expand support, including offering no-cost health care to veterans in suicidal crisis; launching the 988 (then press 1) hotline, qualified responders through the Veterans Crisis Line; expanding firearm suicide prevention efforts; and encouraging veterans to reach out for help through a national veteran suicide prevention awareness campaign.
“There is nothing more important to VA than ending veteran suicide,“ said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough. “We will learn from this report to better serve veterans and save lives.”
AGA Legacy Society Members Sustain GI Research
Research creates successful practices. Patients benefit from GI research daily in practices. Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments and therapies, and to discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.
AGA Legacy Society members have answered this call for support. They recognize the value that research has had in their profession, both in academic medicine and in private practice, and are showing their appreciation by giving back.
“I donated to the AGA Research Foundation to ensure the vitality of our specialty, and to fund the research of future generations of gastroenterologists,” said Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and an AGA Legacy Society member who currently serves as AGA Research Foundation Chair. “Funding from organizations like the AGA Research Foundation is crucial for young scientists and gastroenterologists to launch their careers. At the start of my career, I received two AGA research awards. As a grateful recipient of such funding, I felt it was my turn to support the mission of the organization that I regard as my academic home away from home institution.”
AGA members who make gifts at the AGA Legacy Society level any time before Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025 will receive an invitation to the AGA Research Foundation Benefactor’s Event in San Diego, California. Interested in learning more about the AGA Legacy Society membership? Contact foundation@gastro.org or visit https://foundation.gastro.org/our-donors/aga-legacy-society/ for more information about the AGA Legacy Society.
Research creates successful practices. Patients benefit from GI research daily in practices. Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments and therapies, and to discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.
AGA Legacy Society members have answered this call for support. They recognize the value that research has had in their profession, both in academic medicine and in private practice, and are showing their appreciation by giving back.
“I donated to the AGA Research Foundation to ensure the vitality of our specialty, and to fund the research of future generations of gastroenterologists,” said Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and an AGA Legacy Society member who currently serves as AGA Research Foundation Chair. “Funding from organizations like the AGA Research Foundation is crucial for young scientists and gastroenterologists to launch their careers. At the start of my career, I received two AGA research awards. As a grateful recipient of such funding, I felt it was my turn to support the mission of the organization that I regard as my academic home away from home institution.”
AGA members who make gifts at the AGA Legacy Society level any time before Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025 will receive an invitation to the AGA Research Foundation Benefactor’s Event in San Diego, California. Interested in learning more about the AGA Legacy Society membership? Contact foundation@gastro.org or visit https://foundation.gastro.org/our-donors/aga-legacy-society/ for more information about the AGA Legacy Society.
Research creates successful practices. Patients benefit from GI research daily in practices. Scientists are working hard to develop new treatments and therapies, and to discover cures to advance the field and better patient care. But they can’t do this without research funding.
AGA Legacy Society members have answered this call for support. They recognize the value that research has had in their profession, both in academic medicine and in private practice, and are showing their appreciation by giving back.
“I donated to the AGA Research Foundation to ensure the vitality of our specialty, and to fund the research of future generations of gastroenterologists,” said Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and an AGA Legacy Society member who currently serves as AGA Research Foundation Chair. “Funding from organizations like the AGA Research Foundation is crucial for young scientists and gastroenterologists to launch their careers. At the start of my career, I received two AGA research awards. As a grateful recipient of such funding, I felt it was my turn to support the mission of the organization that I regard as my academic home away from home institution.”
AGA members who make gifts at the AGA Legacy Society level any time before Digestive Disease Week® (DDW) 2025 will receive an invitation to the AGA Research Foundation Benefactor’s Event in San Diego, California. Interested in learning more about the AGA Legacy Society membership? Contact foundation@gastro.org or visit https://foundation.gastro.org/our-donors/aga-legacy-society/ for more information about the AGA Legacy Society.