User login
Michigan GI Designs a Simple Tool For a Common Problem
Patients sometimes drive hundreds of miles to see their GI physicians for problems that never seem to resolve. Constipation is one of those ailments that can affect quality of life.
The advice is, “Try this diet or laxative. Get a colonoscopy. Often, that’s not getting at the root problem,” said Eric Dinesh Shah, MD, MBA, a gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Such methods aren’t equipped to test the pelvic floor, said Dr. Shah, who worked with clinical experts to develop a simple point-of-care device called RED (rectal expulsion device) that makes it easier to diagnose and predict treatment options for constipation.
The device uses a foam-filled balloon to evaluate pelvic floor problems related to constipation, after a digital rectal exam during an office visit. Because the procedure can be performed during a patient’s initial office visit, it can eliminate the need for referrals to far-away specialists for many patients.
In 2019, Dr. Shah received the AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders from the AGA Research Foundation for developing RED, and the device was recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
GI doctors don’t always have the answers, he acknowledged in an interview, but this creates the opportunity for new advancements such as RED. utilizing local and regional workshops as well as national conferences to meet like-minded people at similar career stages, and to look for funding opportunities to explore those ideas.
What is the most challenging case you’ve encountered?
Dr. Shah: The most challenging cases to me have been the ones where I wish we could have helped people years ago. It’s not that anyone did anything wrong or was poorly intentioned. It’s quite the opposite: There sometimes is no real avenue to offer testing locally with current technology, even though the local clinical teams completely understand what should be done in a perfect world. That creates challenges where patients go hours out of their way to see specialists, just to find an answer that might have been 1 mile down the road all along.
What has been your solution to help these patients?
Dr. Shah: My work has been about helping patients who drive a hundred miles or routinely go hours out of their way for their care. Usually that’s a sign that things just aren’t working locally. Patients have lost trust in their ability to get care with the teams they have. Or the teams themselves just need help. I think a major part of the job is to reinforce the bond between the patient and their local team by giving them the tools and expertise so that the patients can get that care locally.
There’s been this trend toward this ‘hub and spoke’ model in care where all the patients are filtering into these large hospital-owned mega practices. I wonder about the sustainability of that model because it takes away the ability of patients to see doctors who are invested in their local community. What we need to be doing is trying to flip that.
I’d love to discuss the RED device and how was this device conceived?
Dr. Shah: I partnered with experts, including William Chey, MD, AGAF, at the University of Michigan, who dedicate their entire careers toward creating robust science in large academic medical centers. In understanding the best ways to care for patients today, I could focus my own career on how to translate that level of care for the patients of tomorrow. I would encourage GI trainees to find senior and peer mentors who share perspective on this approach as an anchor to shared success.
For the RED device, the problem in constipation is that patients see their gastroenterologist over and over and over. It’s ‘try this diet, try this laxative, try this drug, try this other treatment,’ and we’re not getting at the root problem. Patients might go through a series of colonoscopies to reassure them but also to reassure their doctor that they’re not missing something. What we haven’t had is a way to test and evaluate the pelvic floor locally because those technologies are high tech and live in these big academic medical centers.
What are plans for its distribution and use in the consumer space?
Dr. Shah: The device is now available in the United States (https://www.red4constipation.com).
As an AGA Research Scholar Award winner, how might AGA play a role in supporting GI doctors?
Dr. Shah: The AGA Research Scholar Award enabled me to learn how RED predicted outcomes for patients seeing general gastroenterologists who then see pelvic floor physical therapy in the community to treat constipation. The availability of pelvic floor physical therapy and the field at large, has exploded in recent years across the country (https://www.pelvicrehab.com), making it easier for patients to get the local care they need.
In looking at what this award did for my own career and those of others in my cohort, I think the AGA Research Scholar Award mechanism serves as an example of what other GI trainees can do across the many areas of GI that are ripe for transformation.
What other AGA workshops are useful to GI doctors?
Dr. Shah: The AGA Tech Summit and Innovation Fellows programs give access to a positive learning environment to network with people across career stages who are seeking to advance the field in this way. These programs are particularly successful because they focus on helping GI trainees find peer success and professional satisfaction in the shared journey, rather than focusing on the accolades. I would strongly encourage GI trainees who have an interest but don’t know where to start to apply for these programs.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about your specialty?
Dr. Shah: That gastroenterologists have all the answers with current technology. There’s a lot we still don’t know. What gives me reassurance is the momentum around new ways of thinking that GI trainees and early-stage gastroenterologists continually bring forward to improve how we care for patients.
Lightning Round
Do you prefer coffee or tea?
Coffee
Are you an early bird or night owl?
Early bird
What’s your go-to comfort food?
Tex Mex
If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?
Antarctica
What’s your favorite TV show?
Below Deck
What’s one hobby you’d like to pick up?
Painting
What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?
A lazy weekend
If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?
Winston Churchill
What’s your go-to karaoke song?
Our endoscopy nurses give no choice other than Taylor Swift, Green Day, and the Backstreet Boys
Patients sometimes drive hundreds of miles to see their GI physicians for problems that never seem to resolve. Constipation is one of those ailments that can affect quality of life.
The advice is, “Try this diet or laxative. Get a colonoscopy. Often, that’s not getting at the root problem,” said Eric Dinesh Shah, MD, MBA, a gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Such methods aren’t equipped to test the pelvic floor, said Dr. Shah, who worked with clinical experts to develop a simple point-of-care device called RED (rectal expulsion device) that makes it easier to diagnose and predict treatment options for constipation.
The device uses a foam-filled balloon to evaluate pelvic floor problems related to constipation, after a digital rectal exam during an office visit. Because the procedure can be performed during a patient’s initial office visit, it can eliminate the need for referrals to far-away specialists for many patients.
In 2019, Dr. Shah received the AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders from the AGA Research Foundation for developing RED, and the device was recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
GI doctors don’t always have the answers, he acknowledged in an interview, but this creates the opportunity for new advancements such as RED. utilizing local and regional workshops as well as national conferences to meet like-minded people at similar career stages, and to look for funding opportunities to explore those ideas.
What is the most challenging case you’ve encountered?
Dr. Shah: The most challenging cases to me have been the ones where I wish we could have helped people years ago. It’s not that anyone did anything wrong or was poorly intentioned. It’s quite the opposite: There sometimes is no real avenue to offer testing locally with current technology, even though the local clinical teams completely understand what should be done in a perfect world. That creates challenges where patients go hours out of their way to see specialists, just to find an answer that might have been 1 mile down the road all along.
What has been your solution to help these patients?
Dr. Shah: My work has been about helping patients who drive a hundred miles or routinely go hours out of their way for their care. Usually that’s a sign that things just aren’t working locally. Patients have lost trust in their ability to get care with the teams they have. Or the teams themselves just need help. I think a major part of the job is to reinforce the bond between the patient and their local team by giving them the tools and expertise so that the patients can get that care locally.
There’s been this trend toward this ‘hub and spoke’ model in care where all the patients are filtering into these large hospital-owned mega practices. I wonder about the sustainability of that model because it takes away the ability of patients to see doctors who are invested in their local community. What we need to be doing is trying to flip that.
I’d love to discuss the RED device and how was this device conceived?
Dr. Shah: I partnered with experts, including William Chey, MD, AGAF, at the University of Michigan, who dedicate their entire careers toward creating robust science in large academic medical centers. In understanding the best ways to care for patients today, I could focus my own career on how to translate that level of care for the patients of tomorrow. I would encourage GI trainees to find senior and peer mentors who share perspective on this approach as an anchor to shared success.
For the RED device, the problem in constipation is that patients see their gastroenterologist over and over and over. It’s ‘try this diet, try this laxative, try this drug, try this other treatment,’ and we’re not getting at the root problem. Patients might go through a series of colonoscopies to reassure them but also to reassure their doctor that they’re not missing something. What we haven’t had is a way to test and evaluate the pelvic floor locally because those technologies are high tech and live in these big academic medical centers.
What are plans for its distribution and use in the consumer space?
Dr. Shah: The device is now available in the United States (https://www.red4constipation.com).
As an AGA Research Scholar Award winner, how might AGA play a role in supporting GI doctors?
Dr. Shah: The AGA Research Scholar Award enabled me to learn how RED predicted outcomes for patients seeing general gastroenterologists who then see pelvic floor physical therapy in the community to treat constipation. The availability of pelvic floor physical therapy and the field at large, has exploded in recent years across the country (https://www.pelvicrehab.com), making it easier for patients to get the local care they need.
In looking at what this award did for my own career and those of others in my cohort, I think the AGA Research Scholar Award mechanism serves as an example of what other GI trainees can do across the many areas of GI that are ripe for transformation.
What other AGA workshops are useful to GI doctors?
Dr. Shah: The AGA Tech Summit and Innovation Fellows programs give access to a positive learning environment to network with people across career stages who are seeking to advance the field in this way. These programs are particularly successful because they focus on helping GI trainees find peer success and professional satisfaction in the shared journey, rather than focusing on the accolades. I would strongly encourage GI trainees who have an interest but don’t know where to start to apply for these programs.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about your specialty?
Dr. Shah: That gastroenterologists have all the answers with current technology. There’s a lot we still don’t know. What gives me reassurance is the momentum around new ways of thinking that GI trainees and early-stage gastroenterologists continually bring forward to improve how we care for patients.
Lightning Round
Do you prefer coffee or tea?
Coffee
Are you an early bird or night owl?
Early bird
What’s your go-to comfort food?
Tex Mex
If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?
Antarctica
What’s your favorite TV show?
Below Deck
What’s one hobby you’d like to pick up?
Painting
What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?
A lazy weekend
If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?
Winston Churchill
What’s your go-to karaoke song?
Our endoscopy nurses give no choice other than Taylor Swift, Green Day, and the Backstreet Boys
Patients sometimes drive hundreds of miles to see their GI physicians for problems that never seem to resolve. Constipation is one of those ailments that can affect quality of life.
The advice is, “Try this diet or laxative. Get a colonoscopy. Often, that’s not getting at the root problem,” said Eric Dinesh Shah, MD, MBA, a gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Such methods aren’t equipped to test the pelvic floor, said Dr. Shah, who worked with clinical experts to develop a simple point-of-care device called RED (rectal expulsion device) that makes it easier to diagnose and predict treatment options for constipation.
The device uses a foam-filled balloon to evaluate pelvic floor problems related to constipation, after a digital rectal exam during an office visit. Because the procedure can be performed during a patient’s initial office visit, it can eliminate the need for referrals to far-away specialists for many patients.
In 2019, Dr. Shah received the AGA-Shire Research Scholar Award in Functional GI and Motility Disorders from the AGA Research Foundation for developing RED, and the device was recently cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
GI doctors don’t always have the answers, he acknowledged in an interview, but this creates the opportunity for new advancements such as RED. utilizing local and regional workshops as well as national conferences to meet like-minded people at similar career stages, and to look for funding opportunities to explore those ideas.
What is the most challenging case you’ve encountered?
Dr. Shah: The most challenging cases to me have been the ones where I wish we could have helped people years ago. It’s not that anyone did anything wrong or was poorly intentioned. It’s quite the opposite: There sometimes is no real avenue to offer testing locally with current technology, even though the local clinical teams completely understand what should be done in a perfect world. That creates challenges where patients go hours out of their way to see specialists, just to find an answer that might have been 1 mile down the road all along.
What has been your solution to help these patients?
Dr. Shah: My work has been about helping patients who drive a hundred miles or routinely go hours out of their way for their care. Usually that’s a sign that things just aren’t working locally. Patients have lost trust in their ability to get care with the teams they have. Or the teams themselves just need help. I think a major part of the job is to reinforce the bond between the patient and their local team by giving them the tools and expertise so that the patients can get that care locally.
There’s been this trend toward this ‘hub and spoke’ model in care where all the patients are filtering into these large hospital-owned mega practices. I wonder about the sustainability of that model because it takes away the ability of patients to see doctors who are invested in their local community. What we need to be doing is trying to flip that.
I’d love to discuss the RED device and how was this device conceived?
Dr. Shah: I partnered with experts, including William Chey, MD, AGAF, at the University of Michigan, who dedicate their entire careers toward creating robust science in large academic medical centers. In understanding the best ways to care for patients today, I could focus my own career on how to translate that level of care for the patients of tomorrow. I would encourage GI trainees to find senior and peer mentors who share perspective on this approach as an anchor to shared success.
For the RED device, the problem in constipation is that patients see their gastroenterologist over and over and over. It’s ‘try this diet, try this laxative, try this drug, try this other treatment,’ and we’re not getting at the root problem. Patients might go through a series of colonoscopies to reassure them but also to reassure their doctor that they’re not missing something. What we haven’t had is a way to test and evaluate the pelvic floor locally because those technologies are high tech and live in these big academic medical centers.
What are plans for its distribution and use in the consumer space?
Dr. Shah: The device is now available in the United States (https://www.red4constipation.com).
As an AGA Research Scholar Award winner, how might AGA play a role in supporting GI doctors?
Dr. Shah: The AGA Research Scholar Award enabled me to learn how RED predicted outcomes for patients seeing general gastroenterologists who then see pelvic floor physical therapy in the community to treat constipation. The availability of pelvic floor physical therapy and the field at large, has exploded in recent years across the country (https://www.pelvicrehab.com), making it easier for patients to get the local care they need.
In looking at what this award did for my own career and those of others in my cohort, I think the AGA Research Scholar Award mechanism serves as an example of what other GI trainees can do across the many areas of GI that are ripe for transformation.
What other AGA workshops are useful to GI doctors?
Dr. Shah: The AGA Tech Summit and Innovation Fellows programs give access to a positive learning environment to network with people across career stages who are seeking to advance the field in this way. These programs are particularly successful because they focus on helping GI trainees find peer success and professional satisfaction in the shared journey, rather than focusing on the accolades. I would strongly encourage GI trainees who have an interest but don’t know where to start to apply for these programs.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about your specialty?
Dr. Shah: That gastroenterologists have all the answers with current technology. There’s a lot we still don’t know. What gives me reassurance is the momentum around new ways of thinking that GI trainees and early-stage gastroenterologists continually bring forward to improve how we care for patients.
Lightning Round
Do you prefer coffee or tea?
Coffee
Are you an early bird or night owl?
Early bird
What’s your go-to comfort food?
Tex Mex
If you could travel anywhere, where would you go?
Antarctica
What’s your favorite TV show?
Below Deck
What’s one hobby you’d like to pick up?
Painting
What’s your favorite way to spend a weekend?
A lazy weekend
If you could have dinner with any historical figure, who would it be?
Winston Churchill
What’s your go-to karaoke song?
Our endoscopy nurses give no choice other than Taylor Swift, Green Day, and the Backstreet Boys
Childhood IBD Connects PA with Her Patients
Abigail Meyers, MPAS, PA-C, was 9 years old when a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis set the trajectory of her future career.
“There weren’t a lot of medical therapies available back then,” recalls Meyers, who had to undergo multiple hospitalizations and surgeries for her condition. Medical staff would say: “Oh I know how you feel,” then retract their words when Meyers would ask if they had ever experienced a nasogastric tube or ileostomy.
“I’m going to go into healthcare. I’m going to take care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] and I will never say ‘I know how you feel’ unless I truly mean it,” Meyers vowed to her mother one night at the hospital.
And that’s exactly what she did. During her training as a physician assistant (PA), Meyers had the opportunity to do an adult colorectal surgery rotation and a pediatric gastroenterology rotation. Another bonus: she got to work with the gastroenterologist who treated her when she was a 9-year-old patient.
Meyers has never told a patient, “I know how you feel.” Instead, she might say: “This is really hard. This is something new. This is a challenging moment. You’re allowed to feel upset, you’re allowed to feel disappointed, you’re allowed to feel scared.”
A clinical expert in gastroenterology and colon and rectal surgery, Meyers spent 10 years at the Mayo Clinic as a PA in colon and rectal surgery and gastroenterology. She currently works as the assistant director of student success and development at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
On days where things are hard and the grind of the day-to-day work in healthcare becomes too challenging, “I get to remind myself that I do make an impact,” said Meyers. If a patient ever asks her, “Have you ever had an ileostomy before?” Meyers can honestly answer that she has and then describe what it was like.
“I think that allows them to have a little bit of an ‘aha’ moment or a breakthrough in their recovery journey or their acceptance journey, whatever that looks like through this disease process,” she said.
In an interview, she discussed the work she’s done on multiple fronts to guide the careers of advanced practice providers (APPs), and the special connection she has with her patients.
Tell me about your preceptor work with the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation’s APP Preceptorship program.
It is one of my proudest accomplishments, particularly in the preceptorship program. As a patient, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation provided a lot of education and resources when my family was going through a tough time. To be able to give back to the foundation, whether that’s resources for patients or providers, is really great. It’s helped me grow a lot professionally. I realized I enjoyed educating not just my patients, but also my peers. While I worked at Mayo Clinic, I had a wonderful opportunity at a tertiary IBD center for students and advanced practice providers to come and shadow me in colorectal surgery and managing IBD patients.
Michele Rubin, MSN, an advanced practice nurse and Maureen Kelly, MS, RN, CPNP, a nurse practitioner, started the foundation’s preceptor program and graciously took me under their wing.
Originally, there was just one site at the University of Chicago. When I joined, it expanded to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for pediatric experience, and Mayo Clinic Rochester [Minnesota]. There are now seven participating host sites for the 2025 cycle.
The curriculum varies at each site based upon what resources are available. We really tried to tailor it to each individual preceptor. If there’s a nurse practitioner that used to be an ostomy nurse, maybe she’ll get time in the ostomy nurse area, but maybe she wants more time with the pharmacist or the radiologist.
If there is somebody who’s coming through that knows nothing about surgery, maybe they want a little bit more time in the surgical sphere. I tried to, when creating the curriculum for this, create a lot of options that existed for didactic learning as well as practical application.
You’re the assistant director of student success and development at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which launched a new Physician Associate Program. What’s happened with the program so far?
We do not have enrolled students yet. We are developing the program from the bottom up. I am one of four faculty, and then we have our founding director, Christine M. Everett, PhD, MPH, PA-C.
As we develop our program we are trying to keep a holistic approach in mind. We’re thinking about what a traditional student is vs a nontraditional student, and who we think will make great physician assistants. We pull from our own personal experiences as educators and experts in our field. As somebody who is academically minded, this program really spoke to me. Many PAs and nurse practitioners (NPs) fill a primary care role. But as we search to develop academically minded physician associates to join academic medical practices in an anticipated physician shortage, we want to hone in on some of these specialty care areas, recognizing that there is a place for us in academia and asking ‘what does that look like and how do we grow in those subspecialties?’
So, how can I help to foster that type of desire and growth and professional development in my students? That will be what we’re going to be tackling in our future cohorts.
Has the program generated a lot of interest?
Most PAs train in the region they are from and end up practicing there. So, our community and institution are very excited. There’s a lot of work in creating the program and making sure that the goals we have in mind will continue to grow with the profession. One of my neighbors who just started college reached out to me and said she wants to be a PA. We get emails regularly asking what people should do to prepare for PA school, and what are we looking for. PAs and NPs are growing professions. Both are on the top five list of best jobs ranked by U.S. News & World Report right now.
You’re the co-chair of AGA’s NPPA Task Force. What are the goals of this task force, specifically for 2025?
This is a new task force. We’re really excited about it, and we feel very supported by AGA. Specifically, we are focusing on content review and optimization. We’re working through and consulting on different proposals, such as how to have an NP/PA voice within AGA, or how certain proposals can be of interest to APPs or applicable to an APP practice.
One of our other goals is to grow our APP community opportunities, to find ways that we can all communicate with each other, share in our professional accomplishments, and be mentors and sponsors to each other to open the doors for professional growth within the GI space.
We are trying to create a sense of community within all the societies that APPs are involved in, and recognize everyone’s professional development and goals. We want to create a space to connect at some of our primary conferences and touchpoints, regardless of where your society home is.
We’ve also been asked to be a representative in helping to select the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Awards for Gender and Health Equity award recipients. We’re really proud that one of our task force members is going to be sitting on that committee to help select recipients of this award.
As a clinical expert in gastroenterology and colon and rectal surgery, you often present to national organizations like AGA, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons. What topics do you discuss and why?
It’s always been IBD because of my background. But I’ve also grown more in the colon/rectal surgery sphere, both in the inpatient, outpatient, and operating room setting. I enjoy presenting on topics like: What could you do right before you send a patient off to a tertiary IBD referral? I talk about complex disease management, especially the surgical realm of perianal Crohn’s disease. One of my colleagues jokes that one of her favorite talks I’ve ever given is how to perform a perianal examination. It’s a sensitive exam. I feel like I’m pretty good at it!
I also think it’s important to share information on how to write papers and how to present at conferences, because there are a lot of really smart NPs and PAs in GI and colorectal surgery who — for whatever reason — don’t know how to get their foot in the door for these types of opportunities. I love to be the person that opens that door. Do you want to be involved in a professional society? In what capacity? Making that information broadly available to everyone is something that I really love doing.
Describe a memorable patient encounter that helped shape your career.
I know this will sound so cliché, that there isn’t just one, but it’s true. There is a connection that I create with each and every one of my patients. I listen to their stories. They have whole lives outside of their disease, and I am honored that they open up to me — whether that is ongoing communication and check-ins with a patient’s family member a year after they’ve passed away, or every year receiving a Christmas card from a patient who is expanding their family because they’re finally in remission from their disease. These are the types of things that are so impactful and memorable.
Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
I’m a mom to 7-year-old boy twins, and so I often don’t have a free Saturday. If I did, it would be sunny. I would go for a long run and then I would go out for brunch with my husband and then come home and read with my kids in a cozy blanket all day.
Lightning Round
What would you be if you weren’t a GI?
First grade teacher.
Last movie you watched?
Mufasa: The Lion King.
Best Halloween costume?
Velma from Scooby Doo.
Favorite sport?
To play – Tennis.
To watch – NBA basketball, “Go Timberwolves!”
Place you most want to travel to?
Greece
Favorite movie genre?
Rom-com.
Cat person or dog person?
Cat.
Favorite city besides the one you live in?
Manhattan.
Favorite season
Fall.
Favorite junk food?
Salty snack mix.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Three.
Abigail Meyers, MPAS, PA-C, was 9 years old when a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis set the trajectory of her future career.
“There weren’t a lot of medical therapies available back then,” recalls Meyers, who had to undergo multiple hospitalizations and surgeries for her condition. Medical staff would say: “Oh I know how you feel,” then retract their words when Meyers would ask if they had ever experienced a nasogastric tube or ileostomy.
“I’m going to go into healthcare. I’m going to take care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] and I will never say ‘I know how you feel’ unless I truly mean it,” Meyers vowed to her mother one night at the hospital.
And that’s exactly what she did. During her training as a physician assistant (PA), Meyers had the opportunity to do an adult colorectal surgery rotation and a pediatric gastroenterology rotation. Another bonus: she got to work with the gastroenterologist who treated her when she was a 9-year-old patient.
Meyers has never told a patient, “I know how you feel.” Instead, she might say: “This is really hard. This is something new. This is a challenging moment. You’re allowed to feel upset, you’re allowed to feel disappointed, you’re allowed to feel scared.”
A clinical expert in gastroenterology and colon and rectal surgery, Meyers spent 10 years at the Mayo Clinic as a PA in colon and rectal surgery and gastroenterology. She currently works as the assistant director of student success and development at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
On days where things are hard and the grind of the day-to-day work in healthcare becomes too challenging, “I get to remind myself that I do make an impact,” said Meyers. If a patient ever asks her, “Have you ever had an ileostomy before?” Meyers can honestly answer that she has and then describe what it was like.
“I think that allows them to have a little bit of an ‘aha’ moment or a breakthrough in their recovery journey or their acceptance journey, whatever that looks like through this disease process,” she said.
In an interview, she discussed the work she’s done on multiple fronts to guide the careers of advanced practice providers (APPs), and the special connection she has with her patients.
Tell me about your preceptor work with the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation’s APP Preceptorship program.
It is one of my proudest accomplishments, particularly in the preceptorship program. As a patient, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation provided a lot of education and resources when my family was going through a tough time. To be able to give back to the foundation, whether that’s resources for patients or providers, is really great. It’s helped me grow a lot professionally. I realized I enjoyed educating not just my patients, but also my peers. While I worked at Mayo Clinic, I had a wonderful opportunity at a tertiary IBD center for students and advanced practice providers to come and shadow me in colorectal surgery and managing IBD patients.
Michele Rubin, MSN, an advanced practice nurse and Maureen Kelly, MS, RN, CPNP, a nurse practitioner, started the foundation’s preceptor program and graciously took me under their wing.
Originally, there was just one site at the University of Chicago. When I joined, it expanded to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for pediatric experience, and Mayo Clinic Rochester [Minnesota]. There are now seven participating host sites for the 2025 cycle.
The curriculum varies at each site based upon what resources are available. We really tried to tailor it to each individual preceptor. If there’s a nurse practitioner that used to be an ostomy nurse, maybe she’ll get time in the ostomy nurse area, but maybe she wants more time with the pharmacist or the radiologist.
If there is somebody who’s coming through that knows nothing about surgery, maybe they want a little bit more time in the surgical sphere. I tried to, when creating the curriculum for this, create a lot of options that existed for didactic learning as well as practical application.
You’re the assistant director of student success and development at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which launched a new Physician Associate Program. What’s happened with the program so far?
We do not have enrolled students yet. We are developing the program from the bottom up. I am one of four faculty, and then we have our founding director, Christine M. Everett, PhD, MPH, PA-C.
As we develop our program we are trying to keep a holistic approach in mind. We’re thinking about what a traditional student is vs a nontraditional student, and who we think will make great physician assistants. We pull from our own personal experiences as educators and experts in our field. As somebody who is academically minded, this program really spoke to me. Many PAs and nurse practitioners (NPs) fill a primary care role. But as we search to develop academically minded physician associates to join academic medical practices in an anticipated physician shortage, we want to hone in on some of these specialty care areas, recognizing that there is a place for us in academia and asking ‘what does that look like and how do we grow in those subspecialties?’
So, how can I help to foster that type of desire and growth and professional development in my students? That will be what we’re going to be tackling in our future cohorts.
Has the program generated a lot of interest?
Most PAs train in the region they are from and end up practicing there. So, our community and institution are very excited. There’s a lot of work in creating the program and making sure that the goals we have in mind will continue to grow with the profession. One of my neighbors who just started college reached out to me and said she wants to be a PA. We get emails regularly asking what people should do to prepare for PA school, and what are we looking for. PAs and NPs are growing professions. Both are on the top five list of best jobs ranked by U.S. News & World Report right now.
You’re the co-chair of AGA’s NPPA Task Force. What are the goals of this task force, specifically for 2025?
This is a new task force. We’re really excited about it, and we feel very supported by AGA. Specifically, we are focusing on content review and optimization. We’re working through and consulting on different proposals, such as how to have an NP/PA voice within AGA, or how certain proposals can be of interest to APPs or applicable to an APP practice.
One of our other goals is to grow our APP community opportunities, to find ways that we can all communicate with each other, share in our professional accomplishments, and be mentors and sponsors to each other to open the doors for professional growth within the GI space.
We are trying to create a sense of community within all the societies that APPs are involved in, and recognize everyone’s professional development and goals. We want to create a space to connect at some of our primary conferences and touchpoints, regardless of where your society home is.
We’ve also been asked to be a representative in helping to select the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Awards for Gender and Health Equity award recipients. We’re really proud that one of our task force members is going to be sitting on that committee to help select recipients of this award.
As a clinical expert in gastroenterology and colon and rectal surgery, you often present to national organizations like AGA, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons. What topics do you discuss and why?
It’s always been IBD because of my background. But I’ve also grown more in the colon/rectal surgery sphere, both in the inpatient, outpatient, and operating room setting. I enjoy presenting on topics like: What could you do right before you send a patient off to a tertiary IBD referral? I talk about complex disease management, especially the surgical realm of perianal Crohn’s disease. One of my colleagues jokes that one of her favorite talks I’ve ever given is how to perform a perianal examination. It’s a sensitive exam. I feel like I’m pretty good at it!
I also think it’s important to share information on how to write papers and how to present at conferences, because there are a lot of really smart NPs and PAs in GI and colorectal surgery who — for whatever reason — don’t know how to get their foot in the door for these types of opportunities. I love to be the person that opens that door. Do you want to be involved in a professional society? In what capacity? Making that information broadly available to everyone is something that I really love doing.
Describe a memorable patient encounter that helped shape your career.
I know this will sound so cliché, that there isn’t just one, but it’s true. There is a connection that I create with each and every one of my patients. I listen to their stories. They have whole lives outside of their disease, and I am honored that they open up to me — whether that is ongoing communication and check-ins with a patient’s family member a year after they’ve passed away, or every year receiving a Christmas card from a patient who is expanding their family because they’re finally in remission from their disease. These are the types of things that are so impactful and memorable.
Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
I’m a mom to 7-year-old boy twins, and so I often don’t have a free Saturday. If I did, it would be sunny. I would go for a long run and then I would go out for brunch with my husband and then come home and read with my kids in a cozy blanket all day.
Lightning Round
What would you be if you weren’t a GI?
First grade teacher.
Last movie you watched?
Mufasa: The Lion King.
Best Halloween costume?
Velma from Scooby Doo.
Favorite sport?
To play – Tennis.
To watch – NBA basketball, “Go Timberwolves!”
Place you most want to travel to?
Greece
Favorite movie genre?
Rom-com.
Cat person or dog person?
Cat.
Favorite city besides the one you live in?
Manhattan.
Favorite season
Fall.
Favorite junk food?
Salty snack mix.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Three.
Abigail Meyers, MPAS, PA-C, was 9 years old when a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis set the trajectory of her future career.
“There weren’t a lot of medical therapies available back then,” recalls Meyers, who had to undergo multiple hospitalizations and surgeries for her condition. Medical staff would say: “Oh I know how you feel,” then retract their words when Meyers would ask if they had ever experienced a nasogastric tube or ileostomy.
“I’m going to go into healthcare. I’m going to take care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] and I will never say ‘I know how you feel’ unless I truly mean it,” Meyers vowed to her mother one night at the hospital.
And that’s exactly what she did. During her training as a physician assistant (PA), Meyers had the opportunity to do an adult colorectal surgery rotation and a pediatric gastroenterology rotation. Another bonus: she got to work with the gastroenterologist who treated her when she was a 9-year-old patient.
Meyers has never told a patient, “I know how you feel.” Instead, she might say: “This is really hard. This is something new. This is a challenging moment. You’re allowed to feel upset, you’re allowed to feel disappointed, you’re allowed to feel scared.”
A clinical expert in gastroenterology and colon and rectal surgery, Meyers spent 10 years at the Mayo Clinic as a PA in colon and rectal surgery and gastroenterology. She currently works as the assistant director of student success and development at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
On days where things are hard and the grind of the day-to-day work in healthcare becomes too challenging, “I get to remind myself that I do make an impact,” said Meyers. If a patient ever asks her, “Have you ever had an ileostomy before?” Meyers can honestly answer that she has and then describe what it was like.
“I think that allows them to have a little bit of an ‘aha’ moment or a breakthrough in their recovery journey or their acceptance journey, whatever that looks like through this disease process,” she said.
In an interview, she discussed the work she’s done on multiple fronts to guide the careers of advanced practice providers (APPs), and the special connection she has with her patients.
Tell me about your preceptor work with the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation’s APP Preceptorship program.
It is one of my proudest accomplishments, particularly in the preceptorship program. As a patient, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation provided a lot of education and resources when my family was going through a tough time. To be able to give back to the foundation, whether that’s resources for patients or providers, is really great. It’s helped me grow a lot professionally. I realized I enjoyed educating not just my patients, but also my peers. While I worked at Mayo Clinic, I had a wonderful opportunity at a tertiary IBD center for students and advanced practice providers to come and shadow me in colorectal surgery and managing IBD patients.
Michele Rubin, MSN, an advanced practice nurse and Maureen Kelly, MS, RN, CPNP, a nurse practitioner, started the foundation’s preceptor program and graciously took me under their wing.
Originally, there was just one site at the University of Chicago. When I joined, it expanded to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for pediatric experience, and Mayo Clinic Rochester [Minnesota]. There are now seven participating host sites for the 2025 cycle.
The curriculum varies at each site based upon what resources are available. We really tried to tailor it to each individual preceptor. If there’s a nurse practitioner that used to be an ostomy nurse, maybe she’ll get time in the ostomy nurse area, but maybe she wants more time with the pharmacist or the radiologist.
If there is somebody who’s coming through that knows nothing about surgery, maybe they want a little bit more time in the surgical sphere. I tried to, when creating the curriculum for this, create a lot of options that existed for didactic learning as well as practical application.
You’re the assistant director of student success and development at the Medical College of Wisconsin, which launched a new Physician Associate Program. What’s happened with the program so far?
We do not have enrolled students yet. We are developing the program from the bottom up. I am one of four faculty, and then we have our founding director, Christine M. Everett, PhD, MPH, PA-C.
As we develop our program we are trying to keep a holistic approach in mind. We’re thinking about what a traditional student is vs a nontraditional student, and who we think will make great physician assistants. We pull from our own personal experiences as educators and experts in our field. As somebody who is academically minded, this program really spoke to me. Many PAs and nurse practitioners (NPs) fill a primary care role. But as we search to develop academically minded physician associates to join academic medical practices in an anticipated physician shortage, we want to hone in on some of these specialty care areas, recognizing that there is a place for us in academia and asking ‘what does that look like and how do we grow in those subspecialties?’
So, how can I help to foster that type of desire and growth and professional development in my students? That will be what we’re going to be tackling in our future cohorts.
Has the program generated a lot of interest?
Most PAs train in the region they are from and end up practicing there. So, our community and institution are very excited. There’s a lot of work in creating the program and making sure that the goals we have in mind will continue to grow with the profession. One of my neighbors who just started college reached out to me and said she wants to be a PA. We get emails regularly asking what people should do to prepare for PA school, and what are we looking for. PAs and NPs are growing professions. Both are on the top five list of best jobs ranked by U.S. News & World Report right now.
You’re the co-chair of AGA’s NPPA Task Force. What are the goals of this task force, specifically for 2025?
This is a new task force. We’re really excited about it, and we feel very supported by AGA. Specifically, we are focusing on content review and optimization. We’re working through and consulting on different proposals, such as how to have an NP/PA voice within AGA, or how certain proposals can be of interest to APPs or applicable to an APP practice.
One of our other goals is to grow our APP community opportunities, to find ways that we can all communicate with each other, share in our professional accomplishments, and be mentors and sponsors to each other to open the doors for professional growth within the GI space.
We are trying to create a sense of community within all the societies that APPs are involved in, and recognize everyone’s professional development and goals. We want to create a space to connect at some of our primary conferences and touchpoints, regardless of where your society home is.
We’ve also been asked to be a representative in helping to select the AGA-Pfizer Beacon of Hope Awards for Gender and Health Equity award recipients. We’re really proud that one of our task force members is going to be sitting on that committee to help select recipients of this award.
As a clinical expert in gastroenterology and colon and rectal surgery, you often present to national organizations like AGA, the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation, and the American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons. What topics do you discuss and why?
It’s always been IBD because of my background. But I’ve also grown more in the colon/rectal surgery sphere, both in the inpatient, outpatient, and operating room setting. I enjoy presenting on topics like: What could you do right before you send a patient off to a tertiary IBD referral? I talk about complex disease management, especially the surgical realm of perianal Crohn’s disease. One of my colleagues jokes that one of her favorite talks I’ve ever given is how to perform a perianal examination. It’s a sensitive exam. I feel like I’m pretty good at it!
I also think it’s important to share information on how to write papers and how to present at conferences, because there are a lot of really smart NPs and PAs in GI and colorectal surgery who — for whatever reason — don’t know how to get their foot in the door for these types of opportunities. I love to be the person that opens that door. Do you want to be involved in a professional society? In what capacity? Making that information broadly available to everyone is something that I really love doing.
Describe a memorable patient encounter that helped shape your career.
I know this will sound so cliché, that there isn’t just one, but it’s true. There is a connection that I create with each and every one of my patients. I listen to their stories. They have whole lives outside of their disease, and I am honored that they open up to me — whether that is ongoing communication and check-ins with a patient’s family member a year after they’ve passed away, or every year receiving a Christmas card from a patient who is expanding their family because they’re finally in remission from their disease. These are the types of things that are so impactful and memorable.
Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
I’m a mom to 7-year-old boy twins, and so I often don’t have a free Saturday. If I did, it would be sunny. I would go for a long run and then I would go out for brunch with my husband and then come home and read with my kids in a cozy blanket all day.
Lightning Round
What would you be if you weren’t a GI?
First grade teacher.
Last movie you watched?
Mufasa: The Lion King.
Best Halloween costume?
Velma from Scooby Doo.
Favorite sport?
To play – Tennis.
To watch – NBA basketball, “Go Timberwolves!”
Place you most want to travel to?
Greece
Favorite movie genre?
Rom-com.
Cat person or dog person?
Cat.
Favorite city besides the one you live in?
Manhattan.
Favorite season
Fall.
Favorite junk food?
Salty snack mix.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Three.
Three Sisters Embrace ‘Collaborative Spirit’ of GI Science
They all share the same genes—and job title.
Each has her own lab, working in different specialties. But if one sister needs the others, it’s reassuring to know they’re not far away.
“We have very different points of view. I’m interested in microbes. Amy’s really interested in myosin mediated trafficking and Kristen’s interested in viruses and purinergic signaling. It’s awesome that we can all work in the same field but have very different questions. And there’s so many questions that we can tackle,” said Mindy Engevik, the oldest of the trio.
If Mindy’s students need help with staining, she sends them to Amy’s lab. If they need help with calcium signaling and live cell imaging, she’ll send them to Kristen’s lab. “We interchange our expertise a lot,” said Mindy.
It’s nice to have a sister down the hall at work who can advise you on RNA sequencing analysis or immunofluorescence imaging, noted Amy Engevik. “You can ask them: ‘Can you just walk my student through this for a minute?’ Or, could they help with organoid cultures you don’t have time for right now?”
Kristen, who joined her older sisters at MUSC in 2024, observed that “having a little bit of the variety with our backgrounds and training really helps bring out the collaborative spirit of science.”
In an interview, the Engevik sisters spoke more about their familial network, their shared love of gastroenterology (GI) science, and how they’ve parlayed their expertise into other critical areas of research.
Growing up, did you ever think that you would choose similar career paths? How did you all become interested in GI research?
Mindy Engevik: As kids we were all interested in nature and the world around us. We all liked being outside. Amy and I were obsessed with rocks and classifying plants and rocks. We all had a general interest in science. But I personally didn’t think that all three of us would go into the same thing and that we’d be working together as adults.
Amy Engevik: Once we got into high school and college, we all became very close and we all majored in biology. That set the stage for our interest in science and our love of science. Then, we all kind of fell in love with the GI tract and chose postdocs that were GI focused. Since Mindy and I graduated a year apart, ultimately our goal was to form a lab and work together.
Kristen Engevik: I was interested in science when my sisters were both at college studying for biology and talking about the things they were learning in microbiology and physiology. But I don’t think until I joined the PhD program that I was ever like: ‘Oh yeah, we’re all going to be in science and it’s all going to be one big giant collaborative multi-lab collaboration.’
What do each of you love about the field of gastroenterology?
Mindy Engevik: At our heart, we’re all people that love problem solving. A fun fact about us is on Thursdays once a month, we do a puzzle competition here in Charleston. We’re really into it. But I think we genuinely like the problem-solving nature of the GI tract, and there’s so many diverse questions that you can answer.
Amy Engevik: I love that the scientific community in the GI community is so wonderful. They are very kind, helpful people. Some other fields are more competitive and more cutthroat. I feel like I have such a great network of people to reach out to if I have problems or questions. And I think other fields don’t have such a wonderful welcoming community that is very inclusive and dynamic.
Kristen Engevik: The nice thing with studying the GI tract is all things essentially lead to the gut. You can collaborate with other scientists and go into the gut-brain axis, or there’s the cardiovascular-gut axis and all these different places that you can also go, or different diseases that don’t necessarily seem to originate at the gut but have a lot of effects on the gut. There’s a lot of variation that we can do within GI.
Each of you has focused on a different area of digestive disease. Can each of you briefly discuss your areas of study and any findings or discoveries you’d like to highlight?
Mindy Engevik: My research focuses on microbial-host interactions. We’re really interested in how microbes colonize the gastrointestinal tract, how they interact with mucus – which I think is an important aspect of the gut that sometimes is overlooked – and how their metabolites really impact host health. One thing that I’m particularly proud of is we’ve really been starting to understand the neurotransmitters that bacteria generate and how they influence specific cells within the gut. It’s an exciting time to be doing both microbiology and gut physiology.
Amy Engevik: I study the host side of things; the gastric or the GI epithelium, and how a specific molecular motor contributes to trafficking in the GI tract. Recently, I’ve been going back to some of my PhD work in the stomach. In a high fat diet model, we’re finding that there are early metaplastic changes in the stomach. I think the stomach is very often overlooked within the GI tract. And I think it really sets the stage for the lower GI tract for the microbiome that colonizes the colon and the small intestine. I think that changes in the stomach really should come to the forefront of GI. Those changes have profound impacts on things like colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.
Kristen Engevik: I’m also more on the epithelial side with Amy. My new lab’s work is going to be focusing on understanding cell communications, specifically through extracellular purines, which is known as purinergic signaling, and understanding what the effects are during both homeostasis and disease, since it hasn’t been studied within the gut itself. From my work in postdoctoral training, we found that this communication is important for a lot of aspects, specifically during viral infection. But I have some preliminary data that shows it may also have an important role during disease, like colitis. My lab is interested in understanding what this epithelial communication is and are there ways to increase or decrease the signaling depending on the disease.
You’re all skilled in analyzing bioinformatics data. How do you apply this skill in your GI research?
Mindy Engevik: We all got our PhDs in systems biology and physiology, so we were forced to take computational analysis classes. I remember at the time thinking, ‘Oh, I’m probably not going to use a bunch of this.’ And then it really captured our attention. We realized how valuable it was and how much information you could glean.
We do a lot of work using publicly available data sets. I think there’s a wealth of information out there now with single cell sequencing data and bulk RNA sequencing data of different sites in the GI tract. It’s been a very valuable time to data mine and look especially at inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer. We’ve been really focused on all our favorite genes of interest. I’ve been looking at a lot of the mucins and IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and cancer. Amy’s been looking at Myosin-Vb and other myosin and binding partners like Rabs, and Kristen has been looking at purinergic signaling receptors.
All three of you recently worked together to identify a possible genetic driver of uterine corpus endometrial cancer, the fourth deadliest cancer in women. Where are you in the research process right now?
Mindy Engevik: Our mom was diagnosed with cancer, so we took quite a bit of time off to go to California to help her with her chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. While we were there, we decided to do some computational analyses of cancers that affect women as our way to deal with this devastating disease. We were really fascinated to find that Myosin-Vb, which is Amy’s favorite gene of interest, was highly up-regulated in tumors from uterine and corpus endometrial cancer.
This was independent of the age of the patient, the stage of the cancer, the grade of the tumors. We figured out that the promoter region of the gene was hypomethylated, so it was having a higher expression. And that led to changes in metabolism and it linked very closely with what we were seeing in the gut, what Myosin-Vb was doing. We have some uterine cancer tumor cells in the lab that we’ve been growing and we’re going to really prove that it’s Myosin-Vb that’s driving some of these metabolism phenotypes. And the nice thing is at least there is a Myosin-Vb inhibitor available.
We also have a paper under review, identifying what Myosin-Vb is doing in cancer in the colon. So we’re excited to continue both the uterine cancer part but then also the colorectal cancer part using our same processes.
Amy Engevik: We’re going to be generating a mouse model that I think will be helpful since it’s in vivo. Sometimes things in vivo behave very differently than they do in vitro, so I think it’ll be a nice coupling of in vitro data with in vivo, taking that computational base and expanding it into more mechanistic studies and more experimental approaches where we can actually develop uterine cancer in the mice and then see if we can knock out Myosin-Vb specifically in that tissue and prevent it from either happening in the first place or decrease its pathogenesis.
What challenges have you faced in your career? How do you offer each other support?
Mindy Engevik: I think for any female scientists trying to have an independent career, there are some hurdles. An article in Nature recently stated that women receive less credit than their male counterparts and another article in Science demonstrated that women who are last authors on publications are cited less. That’s something that all women must deal with everywhere. I think it’s been incredibly helpful for us since there’s three of us. I think it gives us extra visibility in the field.
Amy Engevik: There’s a lot of microaggressions and things that can hinder your career success. I think that we’ve definitely had that. And I think the academic landscape is changing a little bit now that more women are becoming principal investigators and then rising through the ranks of academia. So I think there’s a lot of hope for the future women, but I think it’s still quite challenging.
Kristen Engevik: Things do seem to be getting better as there are more women as faculty members in certain departments. Science is getting better as things progress. However, there are still a lot of difficulties in trying to get credit for what you do, and getting the promotions.
Mindy Engevik: We have a built-in sisterhood, if you will. So I’m always going to champion Amy or Kristen. If there’s an award that I can nominate them for, I’m always going to do it. If there’s something that I think they should apply for that maybe they hadn’t seen, I’m going to make sure I put it on the radar. I think that’s just incredibly helpful, having people that have your best interest in mind.
Every project we have is basically a big collaboration. We have a lot of papers from our postdocs where we are coauthors. Now, as principal investigators, we have a lot of papers together. And I think in the future you’ll be seeing a lot of coauthored publications from our group as well.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
KE: Talking
Favorite city in US besides the one you live in?
AE: Boston
Favorite breakfast?
ME: Biscuits and grits
Place you most want to travel?
KE: Antarctica
Favorite junk food?
AE: French fries
Favorite season?
ME: Fall
Favorite ice cream flavor?
KE: Black raspberry chip
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
AE: None, I like Diet Coke
Last movie you watched?
ME: Inside Out 2
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
KE: National Park ranger
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
AE: Princess Leia
Favorite type of music?
ME: ABBA
Favorite movie genre?
KE: Romantic comedies
Cat person or dog person?
AE: Neither, I like rabbits
Favorite sport?
ME: Surfing
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
KE: Mama Mia
Introvert or extrovert?
AE: Introvert
Favorite holiday?
ME: Halloween
They all share the same genes—and job title.
Each has her own lab, working in different specialties. But if one sister needs the others, it’s reassuring to know they’re not far away.
“We have very different points of view. I’m interested in microbes. Amy’s really interested in myosin mediated trafficking and Kristen’s interested in viruses and purinergic signaling. It’s awesome that we can all work in the same field but have very different questions. And there’s so many questions that we can tackle,” said Mindy Engevik, the oldest of the trio.
If Mindy’s students need help with staining, she sends them to Amy’s lab. If they need help with calcium signaling and live cell imaging, she’ll send them to Kristen’s lab. “We interchange our expertise a lot,” said Mindy.
It’s nice to have a sister down the hall at work who can advise you on RNA sequencing analysis or immunofluorescence imaging, noted Amy Engevik. “You can ask them: ‘Can you just walk my student through this for a minute?’ Or, could they help with organoid cultures you don’t have time for right now?”
Kristen, who joined her older sisters at MUSC in 2024, observed that “having a little bit of the variety with our backgrounds and training really helps bring out the collaborative spirit of science.”
In an interview, the Engevik sisters spoke more about their familial network, their shared love of gastroenterology (GI) science, and how they’ve parlayed their expertise into other critical areas of research.
Growing up, did you ever think that you would choose similar career paths? How did you all become interested in GI research?
Mindy Engevik: As kids we were all interested in nature and the world around us. We all liked being outside. Amy and I were obsessed with rocks and classifying plants and rocks. We all had a general interest in science. But I personally didn’t think that all three of us would go into the same thing and that we’d be working together as adults.
Amy Engevik: Once we got into high school and college, we all became very close and we all majored in biology. That set the stage for our interest in science and our love of science. Then, we all kind of fell in love with the GI tract and chose postdocs that were GI focused. Since Mindy and I graduated a year apart, ultimately our goal was to form a lab and work together.
Kristen Engevik: I was interested in science when my sisters were both at college studying for biology and talking about the things they were learning in microbiology and physiology. But I don’t think until I joined the PhD program that I was ever like: ‘Oh yeah, we’re all going to be in science and it’s all going to be one big giant collaborative multi-lab collaboration.’
What do each of you love about the field of gastroenterology?
Mindy Engevik: At our heart, we’re all people that love problem solving. A fun fact about us is on Thursdays once a month, we do a puzzle competition here in Charleston. We’re really into it. But I think we genuinely like the problem-solving nature of the GI tract, and there’s so many diverse questions that you can answer.
Amy Engevik: I love that the scientific community in the GI community is so wonderful. They are very kind, helpful people. Some other fields are more competitive and more cutthroat. I feel like I have such a great network of people to reach out to if I have problems or questions. And I think other fields don’t have such a wonderful welcoming community that is very inclusive and dynamic.
Kristen Engevik: The nice thing with studying the GI tract is all things essentially lead to the gut. You can collaborate with other scientists and go into the gut-brain axis, or there’s the cardiovascular-gut axis and all these different places that you can also go, or different diseases that don’t necessarily seem to originate at the gut but have a lot of effects on the gut. There’s a lot of variation that we can do within GI.
Each of you has focused on a different area of digestive disease. Can each of you briefly discuss your areas of study and any findings or discoveries you’d like to highlight?
Mindy Engevik: My research focuses on microbial-host interactions. We’re really interested in how microbes colonize the gastrointestinal tract, how they interact with mucus – which I think is an important aspect of the gut that sometimes is overlooked – and how their metabolites really impact host health. One thing that I’m particularly proud of is we’ve really been starting to understand the neurotransmitters that bacteria generate and how they influence specific cells within the gut. It’s an exciting time to be doing both microbiology and gut physiology.
Amy Engevik: I study the host side of things; the gastric or the GI epithelium, and how a specific molecular motor contributes to trafficking in the GI tract. Recently, I’ve been going back to some of my PhD work in the stomach. In a high fat diet model, we’re finding that there are early metaplastic changes in the stomach. I think the stomach is very often overlooked within the GI tract. And I think it really sets the stage for the lower GI tract for the microbiome that colonizes the colon and the small intestine. I think that changes in the stomach really should come to the forefront of GI. Those changes have profound impacts on things like colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.
Kristen Engevik: I’m also more on the epithelial side with Amy. My new lab’s work is going to be focusing on understanding cell communications, specifically through extracellular purines, which is known as purinergic signaling, and understanding what the effects are during both homeostasis and disease, since it hasn’t been studied within the gut itself. From my work in postdoctoral training, we found that this communication is important for a lot of aspects, specifically during viral infection. But I have some preliminary data that shows it may also have an important role during disease, like colitis. My lab is interested in understanding what this epithelial communication is and are there ways to increase or decrease the signaling depending on the disease.
You’re all skilled in analyzing bioinformatics data. How do you apply this skill in your GI research?
Mindy Engevik: We all got our PhDs in systems biology and physiology, so we were forced to take computational analysis classes. I remember at the time thinking, ‘Oh, I’m probably not going to use a bunch of this.’ And then it really captured our attention. We realized how valuable it was and how much information you could glean.
We do a lot of work using publicly available data sets. I think there’s a wealth of information out there now with single cell sequencing data and bulk RNA sequencing data of different sites in the GI tract. It’s been a very valuable time to data mine and look especially at inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer. We’ve been really focused on all our favorite genes of interest. I’ve been looking at a lot of the mucins and IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and cancer. Amy’s been looking at Myosin-Vb and other myosin and binding partners like Rabs, and Kristen has been looking at purinergic signaling receptors.
All three of you recently worked together to identify a possible genetic driver of uterine corpus endometrial cancer, the fourth deadliest cancer in women. Where are you in the research process right now?
Mindy Engevik: Our mom was diagnosed with cancer, so we took quite a bit of time off to go to California to help her with her chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. While we were there, we decided to do some computational analyses of cancers that affect women as our way to deal with this devastating disease. We were really fascinated to find that Myosin-Vb, which is Amy’s favorite gene of interest, was highly up-regulated in tumors from uterine and corpus endometrial cancer.
This was independent of the age of the patient, the stage of the cancer, the grade of the tumors. We figured out that the promoter region of the gene was hypomethylated, so it was having a higher expression. And that led to changes in metabolism and it linked very closely with what we were seeing in the gut, what Myosin-Vb was doing. We have some uterine cancer tumor cells in the lab that we’ve been growing and we’re going to really prove that it’s Myosin-Vb that’s driving some of these metabolism phenotypes. And the nice thing is at least there is a Myosin-Vb inhibitor available.
We also have a paper under review, identifying what Myosin-Vb is doing in cancer in the colon. So we’re excited to continue both the uterine cancer part but then also the colorectal cancer part using our same processes.
Amy Engevik: We’re going to be generating a mouse model that I think will be helpful since it’s in vivo. Sometimes things in vivo behave very differently than they do in vitro, so I think it’ll be a nice coupling of in vitro data with in vivo, taking that computational base and expanding it into more mechanistic studies and more experimental approaches where we can actually develop uterine cancer in the mice and then see if we can knock out Myosin-Vb specifically in that tissue and prevent it from either happening in the first place or decrease its pathogenesis.
What challenges have you faced in your career? How do you offer each other support?
Mindy Engevik: I think for any female scientists trying to have an independent career, there are some hurdles. An article in Nature recently stated that women receive less credit than their male counterparts and another article in Science demonstrated that women who are last authors on publications are cited less. That’s something that all women must deal with everywhere. I think it’s been incredibly helpful for us since there’s three of us. I think it gives us extra visibility in the field.
Amy Engevik: There’s a lot of microaggressions and things that can hinder your career success. I think that we’ve definitely had that. And I think the academic landscape is changing a little bit now that more women are becoming principal investigators and then rising through the ranks of academia. So I think there’s a lot of hope for the future women, but I think it’s still quite challenging.
Kristen Engevik: Things do seem to be getting better as there are more women as faculty members in certain departments. Science is getting better as things progress. However, there are still a lot of difficulties in trying to get credit for what you do, and getting the promotions.
Mindy Engevik: We have a built-in sisterhood, if you will. So I’m always going to champion Amy or Kristen. If there’s an award that I can nominate them for, I’m always going to do it. If there’s something that I think they should apply for that maybe they hadn’t seen, I’m going to make sure I put it on the radar. I think that’s just incredibly helpful, having people that have your best interest in mind.
Every project we have is basically a big collaboration. We have a lot of papers from our postdocs where we are coauthors. Now, as principal investigators, we have a lot of papers together. And I think in the future you’ll be seeing a lot of coauthored publications from our group as well.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
KE: Talking
Favorite city in US besides the one you live in?
AE: Boston
Favorite breakfast?
ME: Biscuits and grits
Place you most want to travel?
KE: Antarctica
Favorite junk food?
AE: French fries
Favorite season?
ME: Fall
Favorite ice cream flavor?
KE: Black raspberry chip
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
AE: None, I like Diet Coke
Last movie you watched?
ME: Inside Out 2
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
KE: National Park ranger
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
AE: Princess Leia
Favorite type of music?
ME: ABBA
Favorite movie genre?
KE: Romantic comedies
Cat person or dog person?
AE: Neither, I like rabbits
Favorite sport?
ME: Surfing
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
KE: Mama Mia
Introvert or extrovert?
AE: Introvert
Favorite holiday?
ME: Halloween
They all share the same genes—and job title.
Each has her own lab, working in different specialties. But if one sister needs the others, it’s reassuring to know they’re not far away.
“We have very different points of view. I’m interested in microbes. Amy’s really interested in myosin mediated trafficking and Kristen’s interested in viruses and purinergic signaling. It’s awesome that we can all work in the same field but have very different questions. And there’s so many questions that we can tackle,” said Mindy Engevik, the oldest of the trio.
If Mindy’s students need help with staining, she sends them to Amy’s lab. If they need help with calcium signaling and live cell imaging, she’ll send them to Kristen’s lab. “We interchange our expertise a lot,” said Mindy.
It’s nice to have a sister down the hall at work who can advise you on RNA sequencing analysis or immunofluorescence imaging, noted Amy Engevik. “You can ask them: ‘Can you just walk my student through this for a minute?’ Or, could they help with organoid cultures you don’t have time for right now?”
Kristen, who joined her older sisters at MUSC in 2024, observed that “having a little bit of the variety with our backgrounds and training really helps bring out the collaborative spirit of science.”
In an interview, the Engevik sisters spoke more about their familial network, their shared love of gastroenterology (GI) science, and how they’ve parlayed their expertise into other critical areas of research.
Growing up, did you ever think that you would choose similar career paths? How did you all become interested in GI research?
Mindy Engevik: As kids we were all interested in nature and the world around us. We all liked being outside. Amy and I were obsessed with rocks and classifying plants and rocks. We all had a general interest in science. But I personally didn’t think that all three of us would go into the same thing and that we’d be working together as adults.
Amy Engevik: Once we got into high school and college, we all became very close and we all majored in biology. That set the stage for our interest in science and our love of science. Then, we all kind of fell in love with the GI tract and chose postdocs that were GI focused. Since Mindy and I graduated a year apart, ultimately our goal was to form a lab and work together.
Kristen Engevik: I was interested in science when my sisters were both at college studying for biology and talking about the things they were learning in microbiology and physiology. But I don’t think until I joined the PhD program that I was ever like: ‘Oh yeah, we’re all going to be in science and it’s all going to be one big giant collaborative multi-lab collaboration.’
What do each of you love about the field of gastroenterology?
Mindy Engevik: At our heart, we’re all people that love problem solving. A fun fact about us is on Thursdays once a month, we do a puzzle competition here in Charleston. We’re really into it. But I think we genuinely like the problem-solving nature of the GI tract, and there’s so many diverse questions that you can answer.
Amy Engevik: I love that the scientific community in the GI community is so wonderful. They are very kind, helpful people. Some other fields are more competitive and more cutthroat. I feel like I have such a great network of people to reach out to if I have problems or questions. And I think other fields don’t have such a wonderful welcoming community that is very inclusive and dynamic.
Kristen Engevik: The nice thing with studying the GI tract is all things essentially lead to the gut. You can collaborate with other scientists and go into the gut-brain axis, or there’s the cardiovascular-gut axis and all these different places that you can also go, or different diseases that don’t necessarily seem to originate at the gut but have a lot of effects on the gut. There’s a lot of variation that we can do within GI.
Each of you has focused on a different area of digestive disease. Can each of you briefly discuss your areas of study and any findings or discoveries you’d like to highlight?
Mindy Engevik: My research focuses on microbial-host interactions. We’re really interested in how microbes colonize the gastrointestinal tract, how they interact with mucus – which I think is an important aspect of the gut that sometimes is overlooked – and how their metabolites really impact host health. One thing that I’m particularly proud of is we’ve really been starting to understand the neurotransmitters that bacteria generate and how they influence specific cells within the gut. It’s an exciting time to be doing both microbiology and gut physiology.
Amy Engevik: I study the host side of things; the gastric or the GI epithelium, and how a specific molecular motor contributes to trafficking in the GI tract. Recently, I’ve been going back to some of my PhD work in the stomach. In a high fat diet model, we’re finding that there are early metaplastic changes in the stomach. I think the stomach is very often overlooked within the GI tract. And I think it really sets the stage for the lower GI tract for the microbiome that colonizes the colon and the small intestine. I think that changes in the stomach really should come to the forefront of GI. Those changes have profound impacts on things like colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease.
Kristen Engevik: I’m also more on the epithelial side with Amy. My new lab’s work is going to be focusing on understanding cell communications, specifically through extracellular purines, which is known as purinergic signaling, and understanding what the effects are during both homeostasis and disease, since it hasn’t been studied within the gut itself. From my work in postdoctoral training, we found that this communication is important for a lot of aspects, specifically during viral infection. But I have some preliminary data that shows it may also have an important role during disease, like colitis. My lab is interested in understanding what this epithelial communication is and are there ways to increase or decrease the signaling depending on the disease.
You’re all skilled in analyzing bioinformatics data. How do you apply this skill in your GI research?
Mindy Engevik: We all got our PhDs in systems biology and physiology, so we were forced to take computational analysis classes. I remember at the time thinking, ‘Oh, I’m probably not going to use a bunch of this.’ And then it really captured our attention. We realized how valuable it was and how much information you could glean.
We do a lot of work using publicly available data sets. I think there’s a wealth of information out there now with single cell sequencing data and bulk RNA sequencing data of different sites in the GI tract. It’s been a very valuable time to data mine and look especially at inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer. We’ve been really focused on all our favorite genes of interest. I’ve been looking at a lot of the mucins and IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) and cancer. Amy’s been looking at Myosin-Vb and other myosin and binding partners like Rabs, and Kristen has been looking at purinergic signaling receptors.
All three of you recently worked together to identify a possible genetic driver of uterine corpus endometrial cancer, the fourth deadliest cancer in women. Where are you in the research process right now?
Mindy Engevik: Our mom was diagnosed with cancer, so we took quite a bit of time off to go to California to help her with her chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. While we were there, we decided to do some computational analyses of cancers that affect women as our way to deal with this devastating disease. We were really fascinated to find that Myosin-Vb, which is Amy’s favorite gene of interest, was highly up-regulated in tumors from uterine and corpus endometrial cancer.
This was independent of the age of the patient, the stage of the cancer, the grade of the tumors. We figured out that the promoter region of the gene was hypomethylated, so it was having a higher expression. And that led to changes in metabolism and it linked very closely with what we were seeing in the gut, what Myosin-Vb was doing. We have some uterine cancer tumor cells in the lab that we’ve been growing and we’re going to really prove that it’s Myosin-Vb that’s driving some of these metabolism phenotypes. And the nice thing is at least there is a Myosin-Vb inhibitor available.
We also have a paper under review, identifying what Myosin-Vb is doing in cancer in the colon. So we’re excited to continue both the uterine cancer part but then also the colorectal cancer part using our same processes.
Amy Engevik: We’re going to be generating a mouse model that I think will be helpful since it’s in vivo. Sometimes things in vivo behave very differently than they do in vitro, so I think it’ll be a nice coupling of in vitro data with in vivo, taking that computational base and expanding it into more mechanistic studies and more experimental approaches where we can actually develop uterine cancer in the mice and then see if we can knock out Myosin-Vb specifically in that tissue and prevent it from either happening in the first place or decrease its pathogenesis.
What challenges have you faced in your career? How do you offer each other support?
Mindy Engevik: I think for any female scientists trying to have an independent career, there are some hurdles. An article in Nature recently stated that women receive less credit than their male counterparts and another article in Science demonstrated that women who are last authors on publications are cited less. That’s something that all women must deal with everywhere. I think it’s been incredibly helpful for us since there’s three of us. I think it gives us extra visibility in the field.
Amy Engevik: There’s a lot of microaggressions and things that can hinder your career success. I think that we’ve definitely had that. And I think the academic landscape is changing a little bit now that more women are becoming principal investigators and then rising through the ranks of academia. So I think there’s a lot of hope for the future women, but I think it’s still quite challenging.
Kristen Engevik: Things do seem to be getting better as there are more women as faculty members in certain departments. Science is getting better as things progress. However, there are still a lot of difficulties in trying to get credit for what you do, and getting the promotions.
Mindy Engevik: We have a built-in sisterhood, if you will. So I’m always going to champion Amy or Kristen. If there’s an award that I can nominate them for, I’m always going to do it. If there’s something that I think they should apply for that maybe they hadn’t seen, I’m going to make sure I put it on the radar. I think that’s just incredibly helpful, having people that have your best interest in mind.
Every project we have is basically a big collaboration. We have a lot of papers from our postdocs where we are coauthors. Now, as principal investigators, we have a lot of papers together. And I think in the future you’ll be seeing a lot of coauthored publications from our group as well.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
KE: Talking
Favorite city in US besides the one you live in?
AE: Boston
Favorite breakfast?
ME: Biscuits and grits
Place you most want to travel?
KE: Antarctica
Favorite junk food?
AE: French fries
Favorite season?
ME: Fall
Favorite ice cream flavor?
KE: Black raspberry chip
Number of cups of coffee you drink per day?
AE: None, I like Diet Coke
Last movie you watched?
ME: Inside Out 2
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
KE: National Park ranger
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
AE: Princess Leia
Favorite type of music?
ME: ABBA
Favorite movie genre?
KE: Romantic comedies
Cat person or dog person?
AE: Neither, I like rabbits
Favorite sport?
ME: Surfing
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
KE: Mama Mia
Introvert or extrovert?
AE: Introvert
Favorite holiday?
ME: Halloween
In a Parallel Universe, “I’d Be a Concert Pianist” Says Tennessee GI
She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.
One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.
Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”
In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.
During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures.
Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?
There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.
But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty.
Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?
I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.
That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly.
Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?
Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.
The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.
It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Talking
Favorite junk food?
Chocolate chip cookies
Cat or dog person?
Cat
Favorite vacation?
Hawaii
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
I don’t drink coffee
Favorite ice cream?
Butter pecan
Favorite sport?
I don’t watch sports
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.
One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.
Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”
In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.
During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures.
Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?
There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.
But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty.
Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?
I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.
That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly.
Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?
Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.
The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.
It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Talking
Favorite junk food?
Chocolate chip cookies
Cat or dog person?
Cat
Favorite vacation?
Hawaii
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
I don’t drink coffee
Favorite ice cream?
Butter pecan
Favorite sport?
I don’t watch sports
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.
One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.
Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”
In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.
During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures.
Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?
There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.
But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty.
Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?
I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.
That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly.
Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?
Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.
The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.
It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?
I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Talking
Favorite junk food?
Chocolate chip cookies
Cat or dog person?
Cat
Favorite vacation?
Hawaii
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
I don’t drink coffee
Favorite ice cream?
Butter pecan
Favorite sport?
I don’t watch sports
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
How Chronic Stress Disrupts the Gut Microbiome
Chronic psychological stress is common. A 2023 survey revealed that about one quarter of US adults reported high stress levels, and three quarters reported that chronic stress affects their daily lives.
Emerging evidence suggests that chronic stress not only exacts a high toll on mental health but also can wreak havoc on all levels of gastrointestinal (GI) functioning, all the way down to the microbiome.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, gastroenterologist with NYU Langone Health and director of GI Outcomes Research, Gastroenterology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.
“This basically means that the normal balance of microorganisms that essentially we think are beneficial gets reduced, and the colonies considered to be more harmful proliferate,” she explained.
What Does the Science Tell Us?
Numerous studies published in the past 5 years have linked chronic stress to modest but reproducible shifts in the composition of the microbiome.
A study of frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19 revealed that the pandemic was associated with significant depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as gut dysbiosis that persisted for at least half a year.
Notably, healthcare workers had low gut alpha diversity, indicating a less resilient and diverse microbiome, a state often associated with dysbiosis and increased risk for various diseases and negative health outcomes.
A two-cohort study of healthy adults found higher alpha diversity in those reporting low stress levels. It also found a link between stress and enriched levels of Escherichia/Shigella, an overgrowth of which has been linked to various conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease.
In addition, a 2023 systematic review of human studies concluded that stress is associated with changes in specific genera — namely reductions in gut-healthy Lachnospira/Lachnospiraceae and Phascolarctobacterium, which produce beneficial short-chain fatty acids that support the health of the intestinal lining and modulate the immune system.
Stress during specific life stages also appears to alter the gut microbiome.
For example, in a study of postpartum women, those at an increased risk for parenting stress showed lower alpha diversity on the Shannon diversity index.
Research involving mother-child pairs tied adversity — such as maltreatment of the mother during her childhood, prenatal anxiety, and hardship in the child’s early life — to distinct microbiome profiles in 2-year-olds, supporting a stress-microbiome pathway relevant to socioemotional outcomes, the authors said.
Emerging evidence indicates a link between the gut microbiome and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
A recent systematic review found differences in gut microbial taxa between individuals with PTSD and trauma-exposed controls without PTSD. A separate analysis pointed to a potential causal impact of gut microbiomes on the development of PTSD.
Mechanisms Behind the Link
Stress interferes with the brain’s production of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, which controls anxiety, mood, sleep, and many other functions in the brain, Shaukat told GI & Hepatology News.
“But serotonin also crosses the blood-brain barrier, and actually, the gut has more serotonin receptors than the brain, so an imbalance of serotonin can actually affect the gut microbiome through signaling at the neurotransmitter level,” Shaukat explained.
Stress can also affect sleep, and sleep itself has regulatory properties for gut bacteria, Shaukat noted.
“Stress also lowers our immunity, and this can make the gut barrier susceptible or permeable to bacterial toxins that can pass through and breach the gut barrier and be released into the bloodstream, which can trigger inflammation,” Shaukat explained.
Implications for Patient Care
The gut-brain-microbiome axis remains an emerging field of study. “We’re learning more and more about this, and we need to because the microbial colonies are so diverse and we haven’t nailed it down yet,” Shaukat said.
In the meantime, what can clinicians tell patients?
Aside from managing stress, which “is easier said than done,” patients can improve their diet, Shaukat said.
“What we tell patients is to essentially increase their intake of gut-friendly foods that preferentially grow the bacterial colonies that are beneficial for us,” Shaukat said. This includes fermented foods, yogurt, kimchi, chia seeds, kombucha, pickled vegetables, and whole grains.
A recent randomized controlled trial of healthy adults found a “psychobiotic diet” — a diet high in prebiotic and fermented foods — was associated with less perceived stress and subtle beneficial shifts in microbial composition.
“These foods can help keep the gut in good health and may actually also reduce or mitigate some of the effects of stress,” Shaukat said.
“Eating well is something I think we should all think about and maybe prioritize when we’re going through a stressful situation or looking to kind of mitigate the effects of stress and the anxiety and depression it can cause,” she advised.
Shaukat said she also encourages patients to engage in regular physical activity, which benefits the gut microbiome by helping to regulate gut motility. Exercise can also boost mood and help relieve stress.
“A balanced Mediterranean diet and regular activity is truly the secret for gut health,” Shaukat said.
Patients may be tempted by the probiotic supplements lining drugstore shelves, but there “isn’t great evidence for probiotic supplements,” she said. “What we can get from dietary sources far outweighs what can be put in a pill.”
Shaukat disclosed having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic psychological stress is common. A 2023 survey revealed that about one quarter of US adults reported high stress levels, and three quarters reported that chronic stress affects their daily lives.
Emerging evidence suggests that chronic stress not only exacts a high toll on mental health but also can wreak havoc on all levels of gastrointestinal (GI) functioning, all the way down to the microbiome.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, gastroenterologist with NYU Langone Health and director of GI Outcomes Research, Gastroenterology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.
“This basically means that the normal balance of microorganisms that essentially we think are beneficial gets reduced, and the colonies considered to be more harmful proliferate,” she explained.
What Does the Science Tell Us?
Numerous studies published in the past 5 years have linked chronic stress to modest but reproducible shifts in the composition of the microbiome.
A study of frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19 revealed that the pandemic was associated with significant depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as gut dysbiosis that persisted for at least half a year.
Notably, healthcare workers had low gut alpha diversity, indicating a less resilient and diverse microbiome, a state often associated with dysbiosis and increased risk for various diseases and negative health outcomes.
A two-cohort study of healthy adults found higher alpha diversity in those reporting low stress levels. It also found a link between stress and enriched levels of Escherichia/Shigella, an overgrowth of which has been linked to various conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease.
In addition, a 2023 systematic review of human studies concluded that stress is associated with changes in specific genera — namely reductions in gut-healthy Lachnospira/Lachnospiraceae and Phascolarctobacterium, which produce beneficial short-chain fatty acids that support the health of the intestinal lining and modulate the immune system.
Stress during specific life stages also appears to alter the gut microbiome.
For example, in a study of postpartum women, those at an increased risk for parenting stress showed lower alpha diversity on the Shannon diversity index.
Research involving mother-child pairs tied adversity — such as maltreatment of the mother during her childhood, prenatal anxiety, and hardship in the child’s early life — to distinct microbiome profiles in 2-year-olds, supporting a stress-microbiome pathway relevant to socioemotional outcomes, the authors said.
Emerging evidence indicates a link between the gut microbiome and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
A recent systematic review found differences in gut microbial taxa between individuals with PTSD and trauma-exposed controls without PTSD. A separate analysis pointed to a potential causal impact of gut microbiomes on the development of PTSD.
Mechanisms Behind the Link
Stress interferes with the brain’s production of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, which controls anxiety, mood, sleep, and many other functions in the brain, Shaukat told GI & Hepatology News.
“But serotonin also crosses the blood-brain barrier, and actually, the gut has more serotonin receptors than the brain, so an imbalance of serotonin can actually affect the gut microbiome through signaling at the neurotransmitter level,” Shaukat explained.
Stress can also affect sleep, and sleep itself has regulatory properties for gut bacteria, Shaukat noted.
“Stress also lowers our immunity, and this can make the gut barrier susceptible or permeable to bacterial toxins that can pass through and breach the gut barrier and be released into the bloodstream, which can trigger inflammation,” Shaukat explained.
Implications for Patient Care
The gut-brain-microbiome axis remains an emerging field of study. “We’re learning more and more about this, and we need to because the microbial colonies are so diverse and we haven’t nailed it down yet,” Shaukat said.
In the meantime, what can clinicians tell patients?
Aside from managing stress, which “is easier said than done,” patients can improve their diet, Shaukat said.
“What we tell patients is to essentially increase their intake of gut-friendly foods that preferentially grow the bacterial colonies that are beneficial for us,” Shaukat said. This includes fermented foods, yogurt, kimchi, chia seeds, kombucha, pickled vegetables, and whole grains.
A recent randomized controlled trial of healthy adults found a “psychobiotic diet” — a diet high in prebiotic and fermented foods — was associated with less perceived stress and subtle beneficial shifts in microbial composition.
“These foods can help keep the gut in good health and may actually also reduce or mitigate some of the effects of stress,” Shaukat said.
“Eating well is something I think we should all think about and maybe prioritize when we’re going through a stressful situation or looking to kind of mitigate the effects of stress and the anxiety and depression it can cause,” she advised.
Shaukat said she also encourages patients to engage in regular physical activity, which benefits the gut microbiome by helping to regulate gut motility. Exercise can also boost mood and help relieve stress.
“A balanced Mediterranean diet and regular activity is truly the secret for gut health,” Shaukat said.
Patients may be tempted by the probiotic supplements lining drugstore shelves, but there “isn’t great evidence for probiotic supplements,” she said. “What we can get from dietary sources far outweighs what can be put in a pill.”
Shaukat disclosed having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic psychological stress is common. A 2023 survey revealed that about one quarter of US adults reported high stress levels, and three quarters reported that chronic stress affects their daily lives.
Emerging evidence suggests that chronic stress not only exacts a high toll on mental health but also can wreak havoc on all levels of gastrointestinal (GI) functioning, all the way down to the microbiome.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, AGAF, gastroenterologist with NYU Langone Health and director of GI Outcomes Research, Gastroenterology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview with GI & Hepatology News.
“This basically means that the normal balance of microorganisms that essentially we think are beneficial gets reduced, and the colonies considered to be more harmful proliferate,” she explained.
What Does the Science Tell Us?
Numerous studies published in the past 5 years have linked chronic stress to modest but reproducible shifts in the composition of the microbiome.
A study of frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19 revealed that the pandemic was associated with significant depression, anxiety, and stress, as well as gut dysbiosis that persisted for at least half a year.
Notably, healthcare workers had low gut alpha diversity, indicating a less resilient and diverse microbiome, a state often associated with dysbiosis and increased risk for various diseases and negative health outcomes.
A two-cohort study of healthy adults found higher alpha diversity in those reporting low stress levels. It also found a link between stress and enriched levels of Escherichia/Shigella, an overgrowth of which has been linked to various conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease.
In addition, a 2023 systematic review of human studies concluded that stress is associated with changes in specific genera — namely reductions in gut-healthy Lachnospira/Lachnospiraceae and Phascolarctobacterium, which produce beneficial short-chain fatty acids that support the health of the intestinal lining and modulate the immune system.
Stress during specific life stages also appears to alter the gut microbiome.
For example, in a study of postpartum women, those at an increased risk for parenting stress showed lower alpha diversity on the Shannon diversity index.
Research involving mother-child pairs tied adversity — such as maltreatment of the mother during her childhood, prenatal anxiety, and hardship in the child’s early life — to distinct microbiome profiles in 2-year-olds, supporting a stress-microbiome pathway relevant to socioemotional outcomes, the authors said.
Emerging evidence indicates a link between the gut microbiome and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
A recent systematic review found differences in gut microbial taxa between individuals with PTSD and trauma-exposed controls without PTSD. A separate analysis pointed to a potential causal impact of gut microbiomes on the development of PTSD.
Mechanisms Behind the Link
Stress interferes with the brain’s production of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, which controls anxiety, mood, sleep, and many other functions in the brain, Shaukat told GI & Hepatology News.
“But serotonin also crosses the blood-brain barrier, and actually, the gut has more serotonin receptors than the brain, so an imbalance of serotonin can actually affect the gut microbiome through signaling at the neurotransmitter level,” Shaukat explained.
Stress can also affect sleep, and sleep itself has regulatory properties for gut bacteria, Shaukat noted.
“Stress also lowers our immunity, and this can make the gut barrier susceptible or permeable to bacterial toxins that can pass through and breach the gut barrier and be released into the bloodstream, which can trigger inflammation,” Shaukat explained.
Implications for Patient Care
The gut-brain-microbiome axis remains an emerging field of study. “We’re learning more and more about this, and we need to because the microbial colonies are so diverse and we haven’t nailed it down yet,” Shaukat said.
In the meantime, what can clinicians tell patients?
Aside from managing stress, which “is easier said than done,” patients can improve their diet, Shaukat said.
“What we tell patients is to essentially increase their intake of gut-friendly foods that preferentially grow the bacterial colonies that are beneficial for us,” Shaukat said. This includes fermented foods, yogurt, kimchi, chia seeds, kombucha, pickled vegetables, and whole grains.
A recent randomized controlled trial of healthy adults found a “psychobiotic diet” — a diet high in prebiotic and fermented foods — was associated with less perceived stress and subtle beneficial shifts in microbial composition.
“These foods can help keep the gut in good health and may actually also reduce or mitigate some of the effects of stress,” Shaukat said.
“Eating well is something I think we should all think about and maybe prioritize when we’re going through a stressful situation or looking to kind of mitigate the effects of stress and the anxiety and depression it can cause,” she advised.
Shaukat said she also encourages patients to engage in regular physical activity, which benefits the gut microbiome by helping to regulate gut motility. Exercise can also boost mood and help relieve stress.
“A balanced Mediterranean diet and regular activity is truly the secret for gut health,” Shaukat said.
Patients may be tempted by the probiotic supplements lining drugstore shelves, but there “isn’t great evidence for probiotic supplements,” she said. “What we can get from dietary sources far outweighs what can be put in a pill.”
Shaukat disclosed having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
IBD 101: Intensive Course for GI Fellows Boosts Clinical Confidence
Results from the initial pilot program in 2019, called “IBD 101: Physicians and Patients Providing Pearls and Perspectives” are outlined in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases by Lisa Malter, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at NYU Langone Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues.
The course, conducted by Malter at NYU Langone’s simulation center, was designed to increase fellows’ early exposure to the complexities of IBD and its diagnosis and management in the context of rapidly changing therapies and variability across US GI training programs. The authors reported that the 2019 program was well received, with attendees showing “increased comfort and sustained benefit” in discussing IBD management with patients. Notably, participants’ increased comfort levels in broaching IBD topics persisted 3 years after the course compared with that of nonparticipating peers, pointing to potential improved patient care after completion of training.
“At this point, 1 in every 100 GI patients has IBD. It’s one of the more complex GI conditions and its incidence and prevalence are increasing globally,” Malter told GI & Hepatology News. Prevalence rates in the US are reportedly as high as 464.5 per 100,000 persons.
“In addition, its management has become more complicated with newer medications and treatments coming on stream,” she said. “An educational gap exists.”
The Program
The course provided an intimate, interactive format with national experts in the field serving as faculty. Course objectives included basic, introductory information on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of IBD; early exposure to IBD as a subspecialty to allow registrants to make informed career decisions; and information about other educational opportunities.
The course was designed to raise participants’ comfort levels in discussing seven topics with patients, including the need for surgery, IBD in pregnancy, treatment escalation in different disease scenarios, and lack of treatment response.
The three-part course, featuring case scenarios, was offered in person to 60 fellows selected by regional GI fellowship program directors and course faculty, which consisted of a director, three codirectors, and 14 local and national IBD experts. A half-day training session for faculty was held immediately before the course.
In September 2019, the first 32 fellows from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs participated in IBD 101. A total of 49 (89%) of 55 participants completed presession and immediate postsession surveys.
In the 3-year follow-up survey, among 36 fellows, of whom 21 (58%) attended IBD 101 and 15 (42%) did not, attendees reported overall IBD confidence and equivalent or higher levels of comfort in discussing each of seven topics.
Among the specific survey findings:
- 100% said the course had improved their ability to effectively treat and manage patients
- A higher proportion of attendees strongly agreed with having comfort in discussing pregnancy in IBD (43% vs 13%; P = .08)
- A statistically significant proportion strongly agreed with having comfort in discussing loss of response to biologics (62% vs 27%; P = .049)
- 98% reported increased interest in exploring IBD during fellowship
- 100% noted improved understanding of supplemental opportunities to learn about IBD
- 96% would strongly recommend this course to future GI fellows
Further testimony to the effectiveness of the ongoing course, said Malter, is that the version offered in 2024 attracted 425 GI fellows from across the country. “That’s about 90% of US GI fellows,” she said.
Offering an outsider’s perspective on the results of the course, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a director or the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said, “It’s a useful update. It’s always good to see benefits from educational courses.” He expressed caution, however, “in that a small subset of GI fellows always selects toward those with greater IBD interest. Consequently, they likely have participated in several other IBD education activities in the intervening 3 years — so one can’t attribute benefit to this course alone.”
And while one effect of such courses may to increase the number of IBD-interested trainees, their role in providing IBD education to gastroenterologists who will not specialize in IBD is more important, Ananthakrishnan added. “These general gastroenterologists are going to be managing a lot of the IBD in the community, so in my opinion, ensuring they are comfortable with caring for IBD patients optimally is more important than training IBD specialists, who have many opportunities for education.”
In collaboration with the American College of Gastroenterology, the course is open to all first-year GI fellows training in North America. The most recent program was held on September 13, 2025.
This paper received no specific funding. The IBD course has been supported by unrestricted educational grants from Pfizer and Takeda Pharmaceuticals and sponsorships from AbbVie, Janssen, and Prometheus Labs.Malter reported receiving educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; serving as a consultant for Abbvie and Pharmacosmos; and serving on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Janssen, Merck, and Takeda. Multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships with numerous private-sector companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from the initial pilot program in 2019, called “IBD 101: Physicians and Patients Providing Pearls and Perspectives” are outlined in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases by Lisa Malter, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at NYU Langone Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues.
The course, conducted by Malter at NYU Langone’s simulation center, was designed to increase fellows’ early exposure to the complexities of IBD and its diagnosis and management in the context of rapidly changing therapies and variability across US GI training programs. The authors reported that the 2019 program was well received, with attendees showing “increased comfort and sustained benefit” in discussing IBD management with patients. Notably, participants’ increased comfort levels in broaching IBD topics persisted 3 years after the course compared with that of nonparticipating peers, pointing to potential improved patient care after completion of training.
“At this point, 1 in every 100 GI patients has IBD. It’s one of the more complex GI conditions and its incidence and prevalence are increasing globally,” Malter told GI & Hepatology News. Prevalence rates in the US are reportedly as high as 464.5 per 100,000 persons.
“In addition, its management has become more complicated with newer medications and treatments coming on stream,” she said. “An educational gap exists.”
The Program
The course provided an intimate, interactive format with national experts in the field serving as faculty. Course objectives included basic, introductory information on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of IBD; early exposure to IBD as a subspecialty to allow registrants to make informed career decisions; and information about other educational opportunities.
The course was designed to raise participants’ comfort levels in discussing seven topics with patients, including the need for surgery, IBD in pregnancy, treatment escalation in different disease scenarios, and lack of treatment response.
The three-part course, featuring case scenarios, was offered in person to 60 fellows selected by regional GI fellowship program directors and course faculty, which consisted of a director, three codirectors, and 14 local and national IBD experts. A half-day training session for faculty was held immediately before the course.
In September 2019, the first 32 fellows from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs participated in IBD 101. A total of 49 (89%) of 55 participants completed presession and immediate postsession surveys.
In the 3-year follow-up survey, among 36 fellows, of whom 21 (58%) attended IBD 101 and 15 (42%) did not, attendees reported overall IBD confidence and equivalent or higher levels of comfort in discussing each of seven topics.
Among the specific survey findings:
- 100% said the course had improved their ability to effectively treat and manage patients
- A higher proportion of attendees strongly agreed with having comfort in discussing pregnancy in IBD (43% vs 13%; P = .08)
- A statistically significant proportion strongly agreed with having comfort in discussing loss of response to biologics (62% vs 27%; P = .049)
- 98% reported increased interest in exploring IBD during fellowship
- 100% noted improved understanding of supplemental opportunities to learn about IBD
- 96% would strongly recommend this course to future GI fellows
Further testimony to the effectiveness of the ongoing course, said Malter, is that the version offered in 2024 attracted 425 GI fellows from across the country. “That’s about 90% of US GI fellows,” she said.
Offering an outsider’s perspective on the results of the course, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a director or the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said, “It’s a useful update. It’s always good to see benefits from educational courses.” He expressed caution, however, “in that a small subset of GI fellows always selects toward those with greater IBD interest. Consequently, they likely have participated in several other IBD education activities in the intervening 3 years — so one can’t attribute benefit to this course alone.”
And while one effect of such courses may to increase the number of IBD-interested trainees, their role in providing IBD education to gastroenterologists who will not specialize in IBD is more important, Ananthakrishnan added. “These general gastroenterologists are going to be managing a lot of the IBD in the community, so in my opinion, ensuring they are comfortable with caring for IBD patients optimally is more important than training IBD specialists, who have many opportunities for education.”
In collaboration with the American College of Gastroenterology, the course is open to all first-year GI fellows training in North America. The most recent program was held on September 13, 2025.
This paper received no specific funding. The IBD course has been supported by unrestricted educational grants from Pfizer and Takeda Pharmaceuticals and sponsorships from AbbVie, Janssen, and Prometheus Labs.Malter reported receiving educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; serving as a consultant for Abbvie and Pharmacosmos; and serving on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Janssen, Merck, and Takeda. Multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships with numerous private-sector companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from the initial pilot program in 2019, called “IBD 101: Physicians and Patients Providing Pearls and Perspectives” are outlined in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases by Lisa Malter, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology at NYU Langone Grossman School of Medicine, New York City, and colleagues.
The course, conducted by Malter at NYU Langone’s simulation center, was designed to increase fellows’ early exposure to the complexities of IBD and its diagnosis and management in the context of rapidly changing therapies and variability across US GI training programs. The authors reported that the 2019 program was well received, with attendees showing “increased comfort and sustained benefit” in discussing IBD management with patients. Notably, participants’ increased comfort levels in broaching IBD topics persisted 3 years after the course compared with that of nonparticipating peers, pointing to potential improved patient care after completion of training.
“At this point, 1 in every 100 GI patients has IBD. It’s one of the more complex GI conditions and its incidence and prevalence are increasing globally,” Malter told GI & Hepatology News. Prevalence rates in the US are reportedly as high as 464.5 per 100,000 persons.
“In addition, its management has become more complicated with newer medications and treatments coming on stream,” she said. “An educational gap exists.”
The Program
The course provided an intimate, interactive format with national experts in the field serving as faculty. Course objectives included basic, introductory information on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of IBD; early exposure to IBD as a subspecialty to allow registrants to make informed career decisions; and information about other educational opportunities.
The course was designed to raise participants’ comfort levels in discussing seven topics with patients, including the need for surgery, IBD in pregnancy, treatment escalation in different disease scenarios, and lack of treatment response.
The three-part course, featuring case scenarios, was offered in person to 60 fellows selected by regional GI fellowship program directors and course faculty, which consisted of a director, three codirectors, and 14 local and national IBD experts. A half-day training session for faculty was held immediately before the course.
In September 2019, the first 32 fellows from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs participated in IBD 101. A total of 49 (89%) of 55 participants completed presession and immediate postsession surveys.
In the 3-year follow-up survey, among 36 fellows, of whom 21 (58%) attended IBD 101 and 15 (42%) did not, attendees reported overall IBD confidence and equivalent or higher levels of comfort in discussing each of seven topics.
Among the specific survey findings:
- 100% said the course had improved their ability to effectively treat and manage patients
- A higher proportion of attendees strongly agreed with having comfort in discussing pregnancy in IBD (43% vs 13%; P = .08)
- A statistically significant proportion strongly agreed with having comfort in discussing loss of response to biologics (62% vs 27%; P = .049)
- 98% reported increased interest in exploring IBD during fellowship
- 100% noted improved understanding of supplemental opportunities to learn about IBD
- 96% would strongly recommend this course to future GI fellows
Further testimony to the effectiveness of the ongoing course, said Malter, is that the version offered in 2024 attracted 425 GI fellows from across the country. “That’s about 90% of US GI fellows,” she said.
Offering an outsider’s perspective on the results of the course, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, AGAF, a director or the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said, “It’s a useful update. It’s always good to see benefits from educational courses.” He expressed caution, however, “in that a small subset of GI fellows always selects toward those with greater IBD interest. Consequently, they likely have participated in several other IBD education activities in the intervening 3 years — so one can’t attribute benefit to this course alone.”
And while one effect of such courses may to increase the number of IBD-interested trainees, their role in providing IBD education to gastroenterologists who will not specialize in IBD is more important, Ananthakrishnan added. “These general gastroenterologists are going to be managing a lot of the IBD in the community, so in my opinion, ensuring they are comfortable with caring for IBD patients optimally is more important than training IBD specialists, who have many opportunities for education.”
In collaboration with the American College of Gastroenterology, the course is open to all first-year GI fellows training in North America. The most recent program was held on September 13, 2025.
This paper received no specific funding. The IBD course has been supported by unrestricted educational grants from Pfizer and Takeda Pharmaceuticals and sponsorships from AbbVie, Janssen, and Prometheus Labs.Malter reported receiving educational grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda; serving as a consultant for Abbvie and Pharmacosmos; and serving on the advisory boards for AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Janssen, Merck, and Takeda. Multiple coauthors disclosed similar relationships with numerous private-sector companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA OKs Tremfya for Ulcerative Colitis
Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor available as both SC and intravenous (IV) induction options for the treatment of UC and Crohn’s disease (CD), the company noted in a news release.
The approval of SC guselkumab induction in UC was based on results from the phase 3 ASTRO trial, which randomly allocated 418 patients with moderately to severely active UC to receive either induction with 400 mg SC guselkumab at weeks 0, 4, and 8 or placebo.
Following induction, the treatment group either received a maintenance dose of 200 mg SC guselkumab at week 12 and then every 4 weeks or 100 mg every 8 weeks (starting at 16 weeks).
All patients had had an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy.
All primary and secondary endpoints demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements with SC guselkumab compared to placebo across all clinical and endoscopic measures, the company said.
At 12 weeks, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with 400 mg SC guselkumab every 4 weeks achieved clinical remission (26% vs 7% with placebo; P < .001) and endoscopic improvement (36% vs 12%; P < .001).
The results were consistent with the FDA-approved 200 mg IV induction regimen, which previously achieved clinical remission (23% vs 8% with placebo; P < .001) and endoscopic improvement (27% vs 11%; P < .001).
The efficacy of SC and IV induction was comparable across subgroups with severe or refractory disease and both routes demonstrated a similar time to onset of efficacy.
SC guselkumab induction followed by SC guselkumab maintenance therapy also demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in clinical remission and endoscopic improvement compared to placebo.
“Historically, IL-23 inhibitors have required IV infusions at the start of therapy, which can create barriers to starting treatment or be burdensome for some patients and clinicians,” study investigator David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at University of Chicago Medicine, said in the news release.
“UC patients and providers now have the choice of starting Tremfya with a self-administered subcutaneous injection, with the same efficacy and safety that were established with IV induction in the prior clinical trials and subsequently seen in our real-world practice,” Rubin said.
Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor available as both SC and intravenous (IV) induction options for the treatment of UC and Crohn’s disease (CD), the company noted in a news release.
The approval of SC guselkumab induction in UC was based on results from the phase 3 ASTRO trial, which randomly allocated 418 patients with moderately to severely active UC to receive either induction with 400 mg SC guselkumab at weeks 0, 4, and 8 or placebo.
Following induction, the treatment group either received a maintenance dose of 200 mg SC guselkumab at week 12 and then every 4 weeks or 100 mg every 8 weeks (starting at 16 weeks).
All patients had had an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy.
All primary and secondary endpoints demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements with SC guselkumab compared to placebo across all clinical and endoscopic measures, the company said.
At 12 weeks, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with 400 mg SC guselkumab every 4 weeks achieved clinical remission (26% vs 7% with placebo; P < .001) and endoscopic improvement (36% vs 12%; P < .001).
The results were consistent with the FDA-approved 200 mg IV induction regimen, which previously achieved clinical remission (23% vs 8% with placebo; P < .001) and endoscopic improvement (27% vs 11%; P < .001).
The efficacy of SC and IV induction was comparable across subgroups with severe or refractory disease and both routes demonstrated a similar time to onset of efficacy.
SC guselkumab induction followed by SC guselkumab maintenance therapy also demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in clinical remission and endoscopic improvement compared to placebo.
“Historically, IL-23 inhibitors have required IV infusions at the start of therapy, which can create barriers to starting treatment or be burdensome for some patients and clinicians,” study investigator David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at University of Chicago Medicine, said in the news release.
“UC patients and providers now have the choice of starting Tremfya with a self-administered subcutaneous injection, with the same efficacy and safety that were established with IV induction in the prior clinical trials and subsequently seen in our real-world practice,” Rubin said.
Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Guselkumab is the first and only interleukin-23 (IL-23) inhibitor available as both SC and intravenous (IV) induction options for the treatment of UC and Crohn’s disease (CD), the company noted in a news release.
The approval of SC guselkumab induction in UC was based on results from the phase 3 ASTRO trial, which randomly allocated 418 patients with moderately to severely active UC to receive either induction with 400 mg SC guselkumab at weeks 0, 4, and 8 or placebo.
Following induction, the treatment group either received a maintenance dose of 200 mg SC guselkumab at week 12 and then every 4 weeks or 100 mg every 8 weeks (starting at 16 weeks).
All patients had had an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional therapy.
All primary and secondary endpoints demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements with SC guselkumab compared to placebo across all clinical and endoscopic measures, the company said.
At 12 weeks, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with 400 mg SC guselkumab every 4 weeks achieved clinical remission (26% vs 7% with placebo; P < .001) and endoscopic improvement (36% vs 12%; P < .001).
The results were consistent with the FDA-approved 200 mg IV induction regimen, which previously achieved clinical remission (23% vs 8% with placebo; P < .001) and endoscopic improvement (27% vs 11%; P < .001).
The efficacy of SC and IV induction was comparable across subgroups with severe or refractory disease and both routes demonstrated a similar time to onset of efficacy.
SC guselkumab induction followed by SC guselkumab maintenance therapy also demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in clinical remission and endoscopic improvement compared to placebo.
“Historically, IL-23 inhibitors have required IV infusions at the start of therapy, which can create barriers to starting treatment or be burdensome for some patients and clinicians,” study investigator David T. Rubin, MD, AGAF, director of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at University of Chicago Medicine, said in the news release.
“UC patients and providers now have the choice of starting Tremfya with a self-administered subcutaneous injection, with the same efficacy and safety that were established with IV induction in the prior clinical trials and subsequently seen in our real-world practice,” Rubin said.
Full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Could a Clinical Decision Support Tool Improve Outcomes in Pediatric Diarrhea?
“Clinical decision support tools are designed to assist clinicians in making informed and accurate diagnostic and prognostic decisions using available characteristics of the patient and the larger context,” Anna Jones, MD, MPH, and her colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Jones is in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.
Jones and her coauthors concluded such a tool had the potential to improve evidence-based testing in pediatric diarrhea and help clinicians communicate clearly to parents the etiology of their child’s illness. Parents in the study, however, expressed skepticism over the tool, voicing concerns that physicians might over-rely on its algorithms.
The authors said that thanks to the development of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for gastroenteritis, it is now possible to quickly identify up to 22 different pathogens from stool samples. What is lacking, they suggested, are protocols for knowing when to test for these pathogens.
“Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea provide broad recommendations for when diarrhea-related diagnostics should be used, clear guidelines specific to the use of multiplex PCR panels do not exist,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, adding that misusing the diagnostics, however, “can lead to inappropriate antibiotic use and excess financial burdens.”
Meanwhile, communication breakdowns in the patient-doctor relationship are a leading contributor to diagnostic errors, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequently, the National Academy of Medicine has recommended that healthcare professionals seek to engage patients and their families in the diagnostic process.
With these factors in mind, Jones and her colleagues recruited parents who had sought care for their child’s diarrhea and clinicians who routinely treat children with diarrhea. The recruits came from five urgent care sites and one emergency department (ED), all in Utah. Participants were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and January 24, 2025.
In all, the authors interviewed 44 parents (40 women; median age, 34 years). One parent (2%) identified as Asian, two (5%) as Black or African American, 15 (34%) as Hispanic or Latin, and 22 (50%) as White individuals. The remaining four participants (9%) were of unknown race and ethnicity. Most parents spoke English as their primary language (40 [91%]).
Among the 16 clinicians, 10 were physicians and six were nurse practitioners or physician associates. Eleven of the 16 were women and the group had a median age of 42 years. Fourteen clinicians (88%) self-identified as White individuals and two (13%) had unknown race and ethnicity.
All were interviewed on their management of pediatric diarrhea and about their expectations for diagnostic testing and treatment of the condition, as well as the perceived utility of a clinical decision support tool.
Jones and colleagues identified three motivations among parents who sought clinical care for a child with diarrhea. The first was reassurance, which the authors said included validation for what the parents were already doing to care for their child.
The second motivation was to obtain insight into the etiology of their child’s symptoms. “Many believed that diagnostic testing to identify the specific etiology of the illness would be useful. Parents indicated that knowing the etiology would offer desired reassurance and potentially inform treatment decisions,” Jones and her coauthors wrote.
Lastly, parents sought appropriate treatment and symptom relief.
Many clinicians acknowledged the benefits of a clinical decision support tool for help with evidence-based decision-making during diagnosis and to facilitate communication with families. However, they expressed skepticism over the use of diagnostics for etiology, noting that disease management was not dependent upon knowing it.
Some clinicians said many families expected a test. “Even if I don’t think that a GI [gastrointestinal] stool study is necessary, there are situations where…a family is not going to leave the [ED] happy without one. And so I probably order them sometimes when they’re not truly indicated,” a physician reported in the interview.
“That said,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, “clinicians thought that diagnostic testing for pediatric diarrhea was generally not warranted, except in unique cases [such as] bloody stools, prolonged duration of diarrhea, or travel history.”
Many clinicians thought a decision-making tool might help build trust and rapport with the patient’s family, reassuring them their child is getting evidence-based care.
“It just adds to that shared decision-making model. I think it adds trust…I think it does kind of back up our ability to defend why we’re doing what we’re doing,” reported one surveyed ED physician.
Parents were mostly wary of the potential use of a clinical decision-making tool. Jones and colleagues reported that in addition to some clinicians, “several parents expressed concerns that a tool does not account for nuances and would lead to ‘generalizing every kid’ (said the father of a child aged 1-3 years), as opposed to providing patient-centered care.”
Parents also said they worried a clinician would not reply upon their own clinical judgement if they had a diagnostic tool.
Jones and her colleagues concluded that before implementing a clinical decision support tool in pediatric diarrhea, strategies are necessary to, “resolve tension in care expectations, facilitate diagnostic stewardship, and optimize care.”
In an accompanying editorial, KC Coffey, MD, MPH, concluded that the study by Jones and colleagues suggests that adapting such tools to incorporate parental expectations, “could facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and increase acceptance of [using these tools for] decisions. Such discussions might also raise awareness of the potential harms of over testing.” Coffey is an epidemiologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Dobler, MD, who was not involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News that “as the number of available tests continues to grow, stewardship is becoming more relevant than ever. Families may not always realize the downsides of unnecessary testing — such as false positives, avoidable procedures, or added risks — and part of our responsibility is to help them understand both the potential benefits and the potential harms of these tests.”
Dobler is the medical director for clinical decision support in the Department of Clinical Informatics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago.
Clinical decision support tools are helpful in the clinical setting, Dobler said because “they give providers quick access to the most relevant information needed for decision-making. This includes patient-specific details — symptoms, history, labs, and vitals” as well as the characteristics and downsides of the tests. In an ideal world, she said, clinicians would consider these data for every patient.
Dobler cautioned however, that, “it’s important to stress that these tools don’t replace clinical judgment — the provider still evaluates the patient, considers the clinical context, and incorporates the family’s preferences. But as a complement to that process, I believe these tools are very valuable.”
Lastly, Dobler said that transparency is key to helping parents overcome their hesitancy regarding these tools.
Jones, Coffey, and Dobler reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Clinical decision support tools are designed to assist clinicians in making informed and accurate diagnostic and prognostic decisions using available characteristics of the patient and the larger context,” Anna Jones, MD, MPH, and her colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Jones is in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.
Jones and her coauthors concluded such a tool had the potential to improve evidence-based testing in pediatric diarrhea and help clinicians communicate clearly to parents the etiology of their child’s illness. Parents in the study, however, expressed skepticism over the tool, voicing concerns that physicians might over-rely on its algorithms.
The authors said that thanks to the development of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for gastroenteritis, it is now possible to quickly identify up to 22 different pathogens from stool samples. What is lacking, they suggested, are protocols for knowing when to test for these pathogens.
“Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea provide broad recommendations for when diarrhea-related diagnostics should be used, clear guidelines specific to the use of multiplex PCR panels do not exist,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, adding that misusing the diagnostics, however, “can lead to inappropriate antibiotic use and excess financial burdens.”
Meanwhile, communication breakdowns in the patient-doctor relationship are a leading contributor to diagnostic errors, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequently, the National Academy of Medicine has recommended that healthcare professionals seek to engage patients and their families in the diagnostic process.
With these factors in mind, Jones and her colleagues recruited parents who had sought care for their child’s diarrhea and clinicians who routinely treat children with diarrhea. The recruits came from five urgent care sites and one emergency department (ED), all in Utah. Participants were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and January 24, 2025.
In all, the authors interviewed 44 parents (40 women; median age, 34 years). One parent (2%) identified as Asian, two (5%) as Black or African American, 15 (34%) as Hispanic or Latin, and 22 (50%) as White individuals. The remaining four participants (9%) were of unknown race and ethnicity. Most parents spoke English as their primary language (40 [91%]).
Among the 16 clinicians, 10 were physicians and six were nurse practitioners or physician associates. Eleven of the 16 were women and the group had a median age of 42 years. Fourteen clinicians (88%) self-identified as White individuals and two (13%) had unknown race and ethnicity.
All were interviewed on their management of pediatric diarrhea and about their expectations for diagnostic testing and treatment of the condition, as well as the perceived utility of a clinical decision support tool.
Jones and colleagues identified three motivations among parents who sought clinical care for a child with diarrhea. The first was reassurance, which the authors said included validation for what the parents were already doing to care for their child.
The second motivation was to obtain insight into the etiology of their child’s symptoms. “Many believed that diagnostic testing to identify the specific etiology of the illness would be useful. Parents indicated that knowing the etiology would offer desired reassurance and potentially inform treatment decisions,” Jones and her coauthors wrote.
Lastly, parents sought appropriate treatment and symptom relief.
Many clinicians acknowledged the benefits of a clinical decision support tool for help with evidence-based decision-making during diagnosis and to facilitate communication with families. However, they expressed skepticism over the use of diagnostics for etiology, noting that disease management was not dependent upon knowing it.
Some clinicians said many families expected a test. “Even if I don’t think that a GI [gastrointestinal] stool study is necessary, there are situations where…a family is not going to leave the [ED] happy without one. And so I probably order them sometimes when they’re not truly indicated,” a physician reported in the interview.
“That said,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, “clinicians thought that diagnostic testing for pediatric diarrhea was generally not warranted, except in unique cases [such as] bloody stools, prolonged duration of diarrhea, or travel history.”
Many clinicians thought a decision-making tool might help build trust and rapport with the patient’s family, reassuring them their child is getting evidence-based care.
“It just adds to that shared decision-making model. I think it adds trust…I think it does kind of back up our ability to defend why we’re doing what we’re doing,” reported one surveyed ED physician.
Parents were mostly wary of the potential use of a clinical decision-making tool. Jones and colleagues reported that in addition to some clinicians, “several parents expressed concerns that a tool does not account for nuances and would lead to ‘generalizing every kid’ (said the father of a child aged 1-3 years), as opposed to providing patient-centered care.”
Parents also said they worried a clinician would not reply upon their own clinical judgement if they had a diagnostic tool.
Jones and her colleagues concluded that before implementing a clinical decision support tool in pediatric diarrhea, strategies are necessary to, “resolve tension in care expectations, facilitate diagnostic stewardship, and optimize care.”
In an accompanying editorial, KC Coffey, MD, MPH, concluded that the study by Jones and colleagues suggests that adapting such tools to incorporate parental expectations, “could facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and increase acceptance of [using these tools for] decisions. Such discussions might also raise awareness of the potential harms of over testing.” Coffey is an epidemiologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Dobler, MD, who was not involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News that “as the number of available tests continues to grow, stewardship is becoming more relevant than ever. Families may not always realize the downsides of unnecessary testing — such as false positives, avoidable procedures, or added risks — and part of our responsibility is to help them understand both the potential benefits and the potential harms of these tests.”
Dobler is the medical director for clinical decision support in the Department of Clinical Informatics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago.
Clinical decision support tools are helpful in the clinical setting, Dobler said because “they give providers quick access to the most relevant information needed for decision-making. This includes patient-specific details — symptoms, history, labs, and vitals” as well as the characteristics and downsides of the tests. In an ideal world, she said, clinicians would consider these data for every patient.
Dobler cautioned however, that, “it’s important to stress that these tools don’t replace clinical judgment — the provider still evaluates the patient, considers the clinical context, and incorporates the family’s preferences. But as a complement to that process, I believe these tools are very valuable.”
Lastly, Dobler said that transparency is key to helping parents overcome their hesitancy regarding these tools.
Jones, Coffey, and Dobler reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Clinical decision support tools are designed to assist clinicians in making informed and accurate diagnostic and prognostic decisions using available characteristics of the patient and the larger context,” Anna Jones, MD, MPH, and her colleagues wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Jones is in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City.
Jones and her coauthors concluded such a tool had the potential to improve evidence-based testing in pediatric diarrhea and help clinicians communicate clearly to parents the etiology of their child’s illness. Parents in the study, however, expressed skepticism over the tool, voicing concerns that physicians might over-rely on its algorithms.
The authors said that thanks to the development of multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panels for gastroenteritis, it is now possible to quickly identify up to 22 different pathogens from stool samples. What is lacking, they suggested, are protocols for knowing when to test for these pathogens.
“Although the Infectious Diseases Society of America 2017 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of infectious diarrhea provide broad recommendations for when diarrhea-related diagnostics should be used, clear guidelines specific to the use of multiplex PCR panels do not exist,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, adding that misusing the diagnostics, however, “can lead to inappropriate antibiotic use and excess financial burdens.”
Meanwhile, communication breakdowns in the patient-doctor relationship are a leading contributor to diagnostic errors, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequently, the National Academy of Medicine has recommended that healthcare professionals seek to engage patients and their families in the diagnostic process.
With these factors in mind, Jones and her colleagues recruited parents who had sought care for their child’s diarrhea and clinicians who routinely treat children with diarrhea. The recruits came from five urgent care sites and one emergency department (ED), all in Utah. Participants were interviewed between June 15, 2023, and January 24, 2025.
In all, the authors interviewed 44 parents (40 women; median age, 34 years). One parent (2%) identified as Asian, two (5%) as Black or African American, 15 (34%) as Hispanic or Latin, and 22 (50%) as White individuals. The remaining four participants (9%) were of unknown race and ethnicity. Most parents spoke English as their primary language (40 [91%]).
Among the 16 clinicians, 10 were physicians and six were nurse practitioners or physician associates. Eleven of the 16 were women and the group had a median age of 42 years. Fourteen clinicians (88%) self-identified as White individuals and two (13%) had unknown race and ethnicity.
All were interviewed on their management of pediatric diarrhea and about their expectations for diagnostic testing and treatment of the condition, as well as the perceived utility of a clinical decision support tool.
Jones and colleagues identified three motivations among parents who sought clinical care for a child with diarrhea. The first was reassurance, which the authors said included validation for what the parents were already doing to care for their child.
The second motivation was to obtain insight into the etiology of their child’s symptoms. “Many believed that diagnostic testing to identify the specific etiology of the illness would be useful. Parents indicated that knowing the etiology would offer desired reassurance and potentially inform treatment decisions,” Jones and her coauthors wrote.
Lastly, parents sought appropriate treatment and symptom relief.
Many clinicians acknowledged the benefits of a clinical decision support tool for help with evidence-based decision-making during diagnosis and to facilitate communication with families. However, they expressed skepticism over the use of diagnostics for etiology, noting that disease management was not dependent upon knowing it.
Some clinicians said many families expected a test. “Even if I don’t think that a GI [gastrointestinal] stool study is necessary, there are situations where…a family is not going to leave the [ED] happy without one. And so I probably order them sometimes when they’re not truly indicated,” a physician reported in the interview.
“That said,” Jones and her coauthors wrote, “clinicians thought that diagnostic testing for pediatric diarrhea was generally not warranted, except in unique cases [such as] bloody stools, prolonged duration of diarrhea, or travel history.”
Many clinicians thought a decision-making tool might help build trust and rapport with the patient’s family, reassuring them their child is getting evidence-based care.
“It just adds to that shared decision-making model. I think it adds trust…I think it does kind of back up our ability to defend why we’re doing what we’re doing,” reported one surveyed ED physician.
Parents were mostly wary of the potential use of a clinical decision-making tool. Jones and colleagues reported that in addition to some clinicians, “several parents expressed concerns that a tool does not account for nuances and would lead to ‘generalizing every kid’ (said the father of a child aged 1-3 years), as opposed to providing patient-centered care.”
Parents also said they worried a clinician would not reply upon their own clinical judgement if they had a diagnostic tool.
Jones and her colleagues concluded that before implementing a clinical decision support tool in pediatric diarrhea, strategies are necessary to, “resolve tension in care expectations, facilitate diagnostic stewardship, and optimize care.”
In an accompanying editorial, KC Coffey, MD, MPH, concluded that the study by Jones and colleagues suggests that adapting such tools to incorporate parental expectations, “could facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process and increase acceptance of [using these tools for] decisions. Such discussions might also raise awareness of the potential harms of over testing.” Coffey is an epidemiologist and infectious disease physician at the University of Maryland in Baltimore.
Elizabeth Dobler, MD, who was not involved in the study, told GI & Hepatology News that “as the number of available tests continues to grow, stewardship is becoming more relevant than ever. Families may not always realize the downsides of unnecessary testing — such as false positives, avoidable procedures, or added risks — and part of our responsibility is to help them understand both the potential benefits and the potential harms of these tests.”
Dobler is the medical director for clinical decision support in the Department of Clinical Informatics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, Chicago.
Clinical decision support tools are helpful in the clinical setting, Dobler said because “they give providers quick access to the most relevant information needed for decision-making. This includes patient-specific details — symptoms, history, labs, and vitals” as well as the characteristics and downsides of the tests. In an ideal world, she said, clinicians would consider these data for every patient.
Dobler cautioned however, that, “it’s important to stress that these tools don’t replace clinical judgment — the provider still evaluates the patient, considers the clinical context, and incorporates the family’s preferences. But as a complement to that process, I believe these tools are very valuable.”
Lastly, Dobler said that transparency is key to helping parents overcome their hesitancy regarding these tools.
Jones, Coffey, and Dobler reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Are Probiotics for Pouchitis Prevention Worth the Cost?
, but its cost-effectiveness depends on relapse risk and may only be justified in patients who experience frequent relapses of pouchitis, a new analysis showed.
“Our findings highlight that while probiotic treatments can reduce the risk of this complication, their high costs limit their overall value for most patients,” lead author Gaurav Syal, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, said in a statement.
“Our analysis can help guide shared decision-making between patients, clinicians, and payers to ensure resources are used where they can provide the most benefit,” Syal added.
The study was published online in Gastro Hep Advances.
Common Complication After Ulcerative Colitis Surgery
Pouchitis is a common complication in patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA, with a cumulative incidence of around 48% at 2 years and 80% at 30 years.
Many patients who experience pouchitis have a single episode and respond well to short antibiotic courses. However, others develop recurrent or relapsing pouchitis, and 17% progress to a chronic form that can become dependent on antibiotics or refractory to antibiotics.
An eight-strain probiotic was shown to be effective in primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Syal and colleagues sought to determine whether it’s worth the cost.
They constructed decision-tree models with Markov simulations to compare the risk for initial development and recurrence of pouchitis over a 2-year period between no prophylaxis and daily use of the eight-strain probiotic.
In the primary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 2 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin-tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 4 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was initially the same as the primary prophylaxis model with the addition of vedolizumab and infliximab.
Costs were calculated from a US third-party payer perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For primary prevention, the probiotic slightly increased QALYs compared with no probiotic (0.927 vs 0.918) but at a far higher cost ($2223 vs $299), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $236,076 per QALY — well above the accepted threshold.
In patients with infrequent relapses, probiotic use was slightly more effective than no use of probiotic (cumulative QALYs, 1.26 vs 1.24) but more expensive ($3370 vs $557), yielding an ICER of $153,011 per QALY — again above the accepted threshold.
However, sensitivity analyses revealed that the probiotic was cost-effective in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis — defined as two or more episodes per year.
In this subgroup, the ICER dropped below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, and in some scenarios, the probiotic even became the dominant strategy, meaning it was both more effective and less costly than no prophylaxis, the researchers noted.
Current guidelines from AGA on managing pouchitis suggest using probiotics to prevent recurrent episodes of pouchitis with a caveat that those who experience infrequent episodes may choose to avoid secondary prevention strategies.
“Our findings supplement the guidelines by confirming that the eight-strain probiotics can be cost-effective in frequent relapsing not in infrequent relapsing pouchitis,” the authors wrote.
They also noted that the probiotic cost itself was the biggest driver of results, accounting for 95% of the total cost in the primary prevention model. According to their analysis, reducing its price by half could make it a cost-effective option more broadly.
They also noted that probiotic prophylaxis could be cost-effective for patients at higher-than-average risk, such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), who have 4.2 times higher odds of developing pouchitis than peers without PSC.
But they cautioned that “further research is warranted on the effectiveness of the eight-strain probiotic for primary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis and IPAA and PSC.”
The study had no financial support. Syal reported receiving research support from Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, but its cost-effectiveness depends on relapse risk and may only be justified in patients who experience frequent relapses of pouchitis, a new analysis showed.
“Our findings highlight that while probiotic treatments can reduce the risk of this complication, their high costs limit their overall value for most patients,” lead author Gaurav Syal, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, said in a statement.
“Our analysis can help guide shared decision-making between patients, clinicians, and payers to ensure resources are used where they can provide the most benefit,” Syal added.
The study was published online in Gastro Hep Advances.
Common Complication After Ulcerative Colitis Surgery
Pouchitis is a common complication in patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA, with a cumulative incidence of around 48% at 2 years and 80% at 30 years.
Many patients who experience pouchitis have a single episode and respond well to short antibiotic courses. However, others develop recurrent or relapsing pouchitis, and 17% progress to a chronic form that can become dependent on antibiotics or refractory to antibiotics.
An eight-strain probiotic was shown to be effective in primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Syal and colleagues sought to determine whether it’s worth the cost.
They constructed decision-tree models with Markov simulations to compare the risk for initial development and recurrence of pouchitis over a 2-year period between no prophylaxis and daily use of the eight-strain probiotic.
In the primary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 2 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin-tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 4 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was initially the same as the primary prophylaxis model with the addition of vedolizumab and infliximab.
Costs were calculated from a US third-party payer perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For primary prevention, the probiotic slightly increased QALYs compared with no probiotic (0.927 vs 0.918) but at a far higher cost ($2223 vs $299), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $236,076 per QALY — well above the accepted threshold.
In patients with infrequent relapses, probiotic use was slightly more effective than no use of probiotic (cumulative QALYs, 1.26 vs 1.24) but more expensive ($3370 vs $557), yielding an ICER of $153,011 per QALY — again above the accepted threshold.
However, sensitivity analyses revealed that the probiotic was cost-effective in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis — defined as two or more episodes per year.
In this subgroup, the ICER dropped below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, and in some scenarios, the probiotic even became the dominant strategy, meaning it was both more effective and less costly than no prophylaxis, the researchers noted.
Current guidelines from AGA on managing pouchitis suggest using probiotics to prevent recurrent episodes of pouchitis with a caveat that those who experience infrequent episodes may choose to avoid secondary prevention strategies.
“Our findings supplement the guidelines by confirming that the eight-strain probiotics can be cost-effective in frequent relapsing not in infrequent relapsing pouchitis,” the authors wrote.
They also noted that the probiotic cost itself was the biggest driver of results, accounting for 95% of the total cost in the primary prevention model. According to their analysis, reducing its price by half could make it a cost-effective option more broadly.
They also noted that probiotic prophylaxis could be cost-effective for patients at higher-than-average risk, such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), who have 4.2 times higher odds of developing pouchitis than peers without PSC.
But they cautioned that “further research is warranted on the effectiveness of the eight-strain probiotic for primary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis and IPAA and PSC.”
The study had no financial support. Syal reported receiving research support from Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, but its cost-effectiveness depends on relapse risk and may only be justified in patients who experience frequent relapses of pouchitis, a new analysis showed.
“Our findings highlight that while probiotic treatments can reduce the risk of this complication, their high costs limit their overall value for most patients,” lead author Gaurav Syal, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health, said in a statement.
“Our analysis can help guide shared decision-making between patients, clinicians, and payers to ensure resources are used where they can provide the most benefit,” Syal added.
The study was published online in Gastro Hep Advances.
Common Complication After Ulcerative Colitis Surgery
Pouchitis is a common complication in patients with ulcerative colitis who undergo restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA, with a cumulative incidence of around 48% at 2 years and 80% at 30 years.
Many patients who experience pouchitis have a single episode and respond well to short antibiotic courses. However, others develop recurrent or relapsing pouchitis, and 17% progress to a chronic form that can become dependent on antibiotics or refractory to antibiotics.
An eight-strain probiotic was shown to be effective in primary and secondary prevention of pouchitis in randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
Syal and colleagues sought to determine whether it’s worth the cost.
They constructed decision-tree models with Markov simulations to compare the risk for initial development and recurrence of pouchitis over a 2-year period between no prophylaxis and daily use of the eight-strain probiotic.
In the primary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 2 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was ciprofloxacin, metronidazole and ciprofloxacin-tinidazole. In the secondary prophylaxis model, the cycle length was 4 weeks and pouchitis treatment sequence was initially the same as the primary prophylaxis model with the addition of vedolizumab and infliximab.
Costs were calculated from a US third-party payer perspective, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).
For primary prevention, the probiotic slightly increased QALYs compared with no probiotic (0.927 vs 0.918) but at a far higher cost ($2223 vs $299), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $236,076 per QALY — well above the accepted threshold.
In patients with infrequent relapses, probiotic use was slightly more effective than no use of probiotic (cumulative QALYs, 1.26 vs 1.24) but more expensive ($3370 vs $557), yielding an ICER of $153,011 per QALY — again above the accepted threshold.
However, sensitivity analyses revealed that the probiotic was cost-effective in patients with frequent relapsing pouchitis — defined as two or more episodes per year.
In this subgroup, the ICER dropped below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, and in some scenarios, the probiotic even became the dominant strategy, meaning it was both more effective and less costly than no prophylaxis, the researchers noted.
Current guidelines from AGA on managing pouchitis suggest using probiotics to prevent recurrent episodes of pouchitis with a caveat that those who experience infrequent episodes may choose to avoid secondary prevention strategies.
“Our findings supplement the guidelines by confirming that the eight-strain probiotics can be cost-effective in frequent relapsing not in infrequent relapsing pouchitis,” the authors wrote.
They also noted that the probiotic cost itself was the biggest driver of results, accounting for 95% of the total cost in the primary prevention model. According to their analysis, reducing its price by half could make it a cost-effective option more broadly.
They also noted that probiotic prophylaxis could be cost-effective for patients at higher-than-average risk, such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), who have 4.2 times higher odds of developing pouchitis than peers without PSC.
But they cautioned that “further research is warranted on the effectiveness of the eight-strain probiotic for primary prevention of pouchitis in patients with ulcerative colitis and IPAA and PSC.”
The study had no financial support. Syal reported receiving research support from Pfizer.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
Large Language Models Cut Time, Cost of Guideline Development
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
Ethan Goh, MD, executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, described the AGA pilot as both timely and promising.
“I’m certainly bullish about the use case,” he said in an interview. “Their study design and application is also robust, so I would congratulate them.”
Goh, a general editor for BMJ Digital Health & AI, predicted “huge potential” in the strategy for both clinicians and the general population, who benefit from the most up-to-date guidelines possible.
“I believe that using AI can represent a much faster, more cost effective, efficient way of gathering all these information sources,” he said.
Still, humans will need to be involved in the process.
“[This AI-driven approach] will always need some degree of expert oversight and judgement,” Goh said.
Speaking more broadly about automating study aggregation, Goh said AI may still struggle to determine which studies are most clinically relevant.
“When we use [AI models] to pull out medical references, anecdotally, I don’t think they’re always getting the best ones all the time, or even necessarily the right ones,” he said.
And as AI models grow more impressive, these shortcomings become less apparent, potentially lulling humans into overconfidence.
“Humans are humans,” Goh said. “We get lazy over time. That will be one of the challenges. As the systems get increasingly good, humans start to defer more and more of their judgment to them and say, ‘All right, AI, you’re doing good. Just do 100% automation.’ And then [people] start fact checking or reviewing even less.”
AI could also undermine automated reviews in another way: AI-generated publications that appear genuine, but aren’t, may creep into the dataset.
Despite these concerns, Goh concluded on an optimistic note.
“I think that there are huge ways to use AI, tools, not to replace, but to augment and support human judgment,” he said.
Ethan Goh, MD, is senior research engineer and executive director of the Stanford AI Research and Science Evaluation (ARISE) Network, at Stanford (Calif.) University. He declared no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
, according to a pilot study from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).
Faster, cheaper study screening could allow societies to update clinical recommendations more frequently, improving alignment with the latest evidence, lead author Sunny Chung, MD, of Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, reported.
“Each guideline typically requires 5 to 15 systematic reviews, making the process time-consuming (averaging more than 60 weeks) and costly (more than $140,000),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology . “One of the most critical yet time-consuming steps in systematic reviews is title and abstract screening. LLMs have the potential to make this step more efficient.”
To test this approach, the investigators developed, validated, and applied a dual-model LLM screening pipeline with human-in-the-loop oversight, focusing on randomized controlled trials in AGA guidelines.
The system was built using the 2021 guideline on moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease, targeting biologic therapies for induction and maintenance of remission.
Using chain-of-thought prompting and structured inclusion criteria based on the PICO framework, the investigators deployed GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Gemini-1.5-Pro (Google DeepMind) as independent screeners, each assessing titles and abstracts according to standardized logic encoded in JavaScript Object Notation. This approach mimicked a traditional double-reviewer system.
After initial testing, the pipeline was validated in a 2025 update of the same guideline, this time spanning 6 focused clinical questions on advanced therapies and immunomodulators. Results were compared against manual screening by 2 experienced human reviewers, with total screening time documented.
The system was then tested across 4 additional guideline topics: fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for irritable bowel syndrome and Clostridioides difficile, gastroparesis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. A final test applied the system to a forthcoming guideline on complications of acute pancreatitis.
Across all topics, the dual-LLM system achieved 100% sensitivity in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs). For the 2025 update of the AGA guideline on Crohn’s disease, the models flagged 418 of 4,377 abstracts for inclusion, captur-ing all 25 relevant RCTs in just 48 minutes. Manual screening of the same dataset previously took almost 13 hours.
Comparable accuracy and time savings were observed for the other topics.
The pipeline correctly flagged all 13 RCTs in 4,820 studies on FMT for irritable bowel syndrome, and all 16 RCTs in 5,587 studies on FMT for Clostridioides difficile, requiring 27 and 66 minutes, respectively. Similarly, the system captured all 11 RCTs in 3,919 hepatocellular carcinoma abstracts and all 18 RCTs in 1,578 studies on gastroparesis, completing each task in under 65 minutes. Early testing on the upcoming guideline for pancreatitis yielded similar results.
Cost analysis underscored the efficiency of this approach. At an estimated $175–200 per hour for expert screeners, traditional abstract screening would cost around $2,500 per review, versus approximately $100 for the LLM approach—a 96% reduction.
The investigators cautioned that human oversight remains necessary to verify the relevance of studies flagged by the models. While the system’s sensitivity was consistent, it also selected articles that were ultimately excluded by expert reviewers. Broader validation will be required to assess performance across non-RCT study designs, such as observational or case-control studies, they added.
“As medical literature continues to expand, the integration of artificial intelligence into evidence synthesis processes will become increasingly vital,” Dr. Chung and colleagues wrote. “With further refinement and broader validation, this LLM-based pipeline has the potential to revolutionize evidence synthesis and set a new standard for guideline development.”
This study was funded by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY