GI and Hepatology News

Interest in and knowledge of the gut microbiome, and its role in health and disease, has increased exponentially in the past decade. Billions of dollars have been invested in gut microbiome research since release of the NIH Human Microbiome Project’s reference database in 2012, aimed not only at better understanding pathology and disease mechanisms, but also promoting development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. However, it is fair to say that gut microbiome research is still in its infancy, and there is still much to be learned.

Despite this, a global, and largely unregulated, industry of direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests has emerged. These (often costly) tests are now widely available to our patients via retail outlets and online — in exchange for a stool sample, consumers receive a detailed report comparing their microbiome to a “healthy” reference patient and recommending various interventions such as follow-up testing, special diets, or nutritional supplements. By now, we likely all have been handed one of these reports in clinic identifying a patient’s “abnormal” microbiome and asked to weigh in on its dubious results. A special feature article in this month’s issue outlines the controversies surrounding these DTC microbiome tests, which currently lack analytic and clinical validity, and highlights recent calls for increased regulation in this space.

Adams_Megan_A_ANN ARBOR_web.jpg

Also in our July issue, we continue our coverage of DDW 2024 and this year’s AGA Tech Summit, and report on innovative science published in our leading GI journals. We invite you to learn more about the exceptional Dr. Maria Abreu of the University of Miami, who recently assumed her new role as AGA President. Our quarterly Perspectives column tackles the issue of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in GI endoscopy — gastroenterologist Dr. Jana Hashash and anesthesiologists Dr. Thomas Hickey and Dr. Ryan Pouliot offer contrasting perspectives on this topic drawn from AGA and American Society of Anesthesiologists guidance. Finally, our July Member Spotlight features Dr. Lisa Mathew of South Denver Gastroenterology who shares her perspectives on hosting a GI podcast, why private practice is a fantastic laboratory for clinical innovation, and how she found her “tribe” in the field of gastroenterology.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Interest in and knowledge of the gut microbiome, and its role in health and disease, has increased exponentially in the past decade. Billions of dollars have been invested in gut microbiome research since release of the NIH Human Microbiome Project’s reference database in 2012, aimed not only at better understanding pathology and disease mechanisms, but also promoting development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. However, it is fair to say that gut microbiome research is still in its infancy, and there is still much to be learned.

Despite this, a global, and largely unregulated, industry of direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests has emerged. These (often costly) tests are now widely available to our patients via retail outlets and online — in exchange for a stool sample, consumers receive a detailed report comparing their microbiome to a “healthy” reference patient and recommending various interventions such as follow-up testing, special diets, or nutritional supplements. By now, we likely all have been handed one of these reports in clinic identifying a patient’s “abnormal” microbiome and asked to weigh in on its dubious results. A special feature article in this month’s issue outlines the controversies surrounding these DTC microbiome tests, which currently lack analytic and clinical validity, and highlights recent calls for increased regulation in this space.

Adams_Megan_A_ANN ARBOR_web.jpg

Also in our July issue, we continue our coverage of DDW 2024 and this year’s AGA Tech Summit, and report on innovative science published in our leading GI journals. We invite you to learn more about the exceptional Dr. Maria Abreu of the University of Miami, who recently assumed her new role as AGA President. Our quarterly Perspectives column tackles the issue of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in GI endoscopy — gastroenterologist Dr. Jana Hashash and anesthesiologists Dr. Thomas Hickey and Dr. Ryan Pouliot offer contrasting perspectives on this topic drawn from AGA and American Society of Anesthesiologists guidance. Finally, our July Member Spotlight features Dr. Lisa Mathew of South Denver Gastroenterology who shares her perspectives on hosting a GI podcast, why private practice is a fantastic laboratory for clinical innovation, and how she found her “tribe” in the field of gastroenterology.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Interest in and knowledge of the gut microbiome, and its role in health and disease, has increased exponentially in the past decade. Billions of dollars have been invested in gut microbiome research since release of the NIH Human Microbiome Project’s reference database in 2012, aimed not only at better understanding pathology and disease mechanisms, but also promoting development of novel diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. However, it is fair to say that gut microbiome research is still in its infancy, and there is still much to be learned.

Despite this, a global, and largely unregulated, industry of direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome tests has emerged. These (often costly) tests are now widely available to our patients via retail outlets and online — in exchange for a stool sample, consumers receive a detailed report comparing their microbiome to a “healthy” reference patient and recommending various interventions such as follow-up testing, special diets, or nutritional supplements. By now, we likely all have been handed one of these reports in clinic identifying a patient’s “abnormal” microbiome and asked to weigh in on its dubious results. A special feature article in this month’s issue outlines the controversies surrounding these DTC microbiome tests, which currently lack analytic and clinical validity, and highlights recent calls for increased regulation in this space.

Adams_Megan_A_ANN ARBOR_web.jpg

Also in our July issue, we continue our coverage of DDW 2024 and this year’s AGA Tech Summit, and report on innovative science published in our leading GI journals. We invite you to learn more about the exceptional Dr. Maria Abreu of the University of Miami, who recently assumed her new role as AGA President. Our quarterly Perspectives column tackles the issue of GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in GI endoscopy — gastroenterologist Dr. Jana Hashash and anesthesiologists Dr. Thomas Hickey and Dr. Ryan Pouliot offer contrasting perspectives on this topic drawn from AGA and American Society of Anesthesiologists guidance. Finally, our July Member Spotlight features Dr. Lisa Mathew of South Denver Gastroenterology who shares her perspectives on hosting a GI podcast, why private practice is a fantastic laboratory for clinical innovation, and how she found her “tribe” in the field of gastroenterology.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Lisa Mathew, MD, wants to quell any misconceptions that private practice is dull or routine. “That has not been my experience at all,” says Dr. Mathew, a partner with South Denver Gastroenterology in the suburbs of Denver, Colorado.

For Dr. Mathew, working in private practice offers a rich professional experience, not just in the day-to-day experiences of medicine, but in practice management innovation and patient care delivery. “It’s an area within GI where we can be quite nimble in trialing new technologies, optimizing patients’ access to care and working to ensure a positive patient experience,” she said.

Nationwide, a flourishing GI private practice community engages in ongoing dialogue about improvements, navigating a changing healthcare environment, and innovation. “That has been a surprising and wonderful twist in my career,” she added.

uem

Dr. Mathew fosters that dialogue through Gastro Broadcast, a podcast she shares with several other GI physicians. Targeted toward private GI practice, it highlights innovations within the community, providing updates on practice management and other technological advances.

In an interview, she spoke frankly about her favorite recent podcast guest, the challenges she’s faced in her career, and why her fellow GI specialists are her “tribe.”
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

Dr. Mathew: In medical school at Duke University, I was considering going into ob.gyn., but academically I was a little more drawn toward internal medicine. While I was in my residency at the University of Pennsylvania, I really clicked with the gastroenterologists. I enjoyed their sense of humor. They were dealing with complex medical issues but doing so with a sense of levity and enjoyment in their work. When I entered fellowship at the University of Washington, I felt like I found my tribe. This was a group of people who really love their work, love medicine, love being able to develop their procedural skills, and keep a sense of humor about themselves. I married a cardiologist (and he’s a hilarious cardiologist), but the world of cardiology is a little more buttoned up. I like that GI is a little more relaxed.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Mathew: My patients. They are funny and genuine, and they allow you into these moments of vulnerability — it’s an honor to walk through that together. I’m always so grateful for the trust they put in me in those moments. As my practice has matured, it’s been incredible to watch those relationships grow, as well as begin caring for husbands, wives, sons and daughters of my patients. I enjoy being a part of my community.

Q: Can you talk about an interesting recent guest you had on your podcast? Who was it and why did he or she stand out?

Dr. Mathew: Russ Arjal, MD, AGAF, cofounder, chief medical officer and president of Telebelly Health. He’s been working on a platform for exclusively telehealth services that improves access to care; pairing patients with brick-and-mortar gastroenterology to provide any necessary procedural care, such as colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. It was a fantastic interview. I think it’s so refreshing and inspiring to see how people innovate within the field of GI. On the procedural side, you see this all the time. With my advanced endoscopy colleagues, they’re constantly pushing the boundaries of what we can do procedurally. My academic colleagues are constantly thinking through what the next best treatment is or how best can we optimize care. And, in the world of private practice, we’re thinking about practice care delivery — how to improve access and make the experience of being a patient better, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes.
 

Q: What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?

Dr. Mathew: Imposter Syndrome is a very, very common issue, maybe somewhat more for women in GI. I think it’s something that everybody wrestles with to some degree. For me, it was developing confidence not just in my clinical skills, but in learning all the complexities of running a small business. It takes time to develop confidence in your abilities and judgment. I think to some degree, that’s normal. It just takes a while to settle into whatever your chosen career path is. Having a community and strong mentors to support me has made all the difference.

Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.

Dr. Mathew: One of the greatest challenges in my career has been navigating COVID — both with just the tremendous sea change it had on our ability to practice, as well as the financial consequences to someone in private practice. Those were very challenging times to deliver the care that was needed, protect staff, and to maintain a small business. Fortunately, as with many practices across the nation, we’ve emerged through that.

We pivoted, we innovated with telehealth and other services that allowed us to care for our patients. But there were a lot of lessons learned and a lot of difficult moments.
 

Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Mathew: My dad has taught me the value of hard work. Being a physician just comes in tandem with hard work. And my mom, who is a nurse, has always shown the importance of empathy. Without it, everything else is a little empty. Medicine is a combination of skill and hard work, but also an ability to connect with other people. Empathy is essential to that.

Q: Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.

Dr. Mathew: We have three children who are native Coloradans so skiing is their birthright. Our entire family are diehard skiers. This is our joy. When you talk about the beach versus mountains debate, we are firmly team mountains. On a perfect Saturday afternoon, I’m on the slopes with my little crew, just tearing it up, having a great time.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Texting

Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?

Washington, D.C.

Favorite breakfast?

Avocado toast

Place you most want to travel to?

South America

Favorite junk food?

Candy

Favorite season?

Winter

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

2 or 3

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?

Ski coach

Best Halloween costume you ever wore?

Bunch of grapes

Favorite type of music?

Indie folk

Favorite movie genre?

Books, not into movies

Cat person or dog person?

Neither, but I am a certified beekeeper

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Anything by Queen

Introvert or extrovert?

Extrovert with introverted tendencies

Favorite holiday?

Thanksgiving

Optimist or pessimist?

100% glass half full

Lisa Mathew, MD, wants to quell any misconceptions that private practice is dull or routine. “That has not been my experience at all,” says Dr. Mathew, a partner with South Denver Gastroenterology in the suburbs of Denver, Colorado.

For Dr. Mathew, working in private practice offers a rich professional experience, not just in the day-to-day experiences of medicine, but in practice management innovation and patient care delivery. “It’s an area within GI where we can be quite nimble in trialing new technologies, optimizing patients’ access to care and working to ensure a positive patient experience,” she said.

Nationwide, a flourishing GI private practice community engages in ongoing dialogue about improvements, navigating a changing healthcare environment, and innovation. “That has been a surprising and wonderful twist in my career,” she added.

uem

Dr. Mathew fosters that dialogue through Gastro Broadcast, a podcast she shares with several other GI physicians. Targeted toward private GI practice, it highlights innovations within the community, providing updates on practice management and other technological advances.

In an interview, she spoke frankly about her favorite recent podcast guest, the challenges she’s faced in her career, and why her fellow GI specialists are her “tribe.”
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

Dr. Mathew: In medical school at Duke University, I was considering going into ob.gyn., but academically I was a little more drawn toward internal medicine. While I was in my residency at the University of Pennsylvania, I really clicked with the gastroenterologists. I enjoyed their sense of humor. They were dealing with complex medical issues but doing so with a sense of levity and enjoyment in their work. When I entered fellowship at the University of Washington, I felt like I found my tribe. This was a group of people who really love their work, love medicine, love being able to develop their procedural skills, and keep a sense of humor about themselves. I married a cardiologist (and he’s a hilarious cardiologist), but the world of cardiology is a little more buttoned up. I like that GI is a little more relaxed.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Mathew: My patients. They are funny and genuine, and they allow you into these moments of vulnerability — it’s an honor to walk through that together. I’m always so grateful for the trust they put in me in those moments. As my practice has matured, it’s been incredible to watch those relationships grow, as well as begin caring for husbands, wives, sons and daughters of my patients. I enjoy being a part of my community.

Q: Can you talk about an interesting recent guest you had on your podcast? Who was it and why did he or she stand out?

Dr. Mathew: Russ Arjal, MD, AGAF, cofounder, chief medical officer and president of Telebelly Health. He’s been working on a platform for exclusively telehealth services that improves access to care; pairing patients with brick-and-mortar gastroenterology to provide any necessary procedural care, such as colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. It was a fantastic interview. I think it’s so refreshing and inspiring to see how people innovate within the field of GI. On the procedural side, you see this all the time. With my advanced endoscopy colleagues, they’re constantly pushing the boundaries of what we can do procedurally. My academic colleagues are constantly thinking through what the next best treatment is or how best can we optimize care. And, in the world of private practice, we’re thinking about practice care delivery — how to improve access and make the experience of being a patient better, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes.
 

Q: What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?

Dr. Mathew: Imposter Syndrome is a very, very common issue, maybe somewhat more for women in GI. I think it’s something that everybody wrestles with to some degree. For me, it was developing confidence not just in my clinical skills, but in learning all the complexities of running a small business. It takes time to develop confidence in your abilities and judgment. I think to some degree, that’s normal. It just takes a while to settle into whatever your chosen career path is. Having a community and strong mentors to support me has made all the difference.

Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.

Dr. Mathew: One of the greatest challenges in my career has been navigating COVID — both with just the tremendous sea change it had on our ability to practice, as well as the financial consequences to someone in private practice. Those were very challenging times to deliver the care that was needed, protect staff, and to maintain a small business. Fortunately, as with many practices across the nation, we’ve emerged through that.

We pivoted, we innovated with telehealth and other services that allowed us to care for our patients. But there were a lot of lessons learned and a lot of difficult moments.
 

Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Mathew: My dad has taught me the value of hard work. Being a physician just comes in tandem with hard work. And my mom, who is a nurse, has always shown the importance of empathy. Without it, everything else is a little empty. Medicine is a combination of skill and hard work, but also an ability to connect with other people. Empathy is essential to that.

Q: Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.

Dr. Mathew: We have three children who are native Coloradans so skiing is their birthright. Our entire family are diehard skiers. This is our joy. When you talk about the beach versus mountains debate, we are firmly team mountains. On a perfect Saturday afternoon, I’m on the slopes with my little crew, just tearing it up, having a great time.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Texting

Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?

Washington, D.C.

Favorite breakfast?

Avocado toast

Place you most want to travel to?

South America

Favorite junk food?

Candy

Favorite season?

Winter

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

2 or 3

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?

Ski coach

Best Halloween costume you ever wore?

Bunch of grapes

Favorite type of music?

Indie folk

Favorite movie genre?

Books, not into movies

Cat person or dog person?

Neither, but I am a certified beekeeper

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Anything by Queen

Introvert or extrovert?

Extrovert with introverted tendencies

Favorite holiday?

Thanksgiving

Optimist or pessimist?

100% glass half full

Lisa Mathew, MD, wants to quell any misconceptions that private practice is dull or routine. “That has not been my experience at all,” says Dr. Mathew, a partner with South Denver Gastroenterology in the suburbs of Denver, Colorado.

For Dr. Mathew, working in private practice offers a rich professional experience, not just in the day-to-day experiences of medicine, but in practice management innovation and patient care delivery. “It’s an area within GI where we can be quite nimble in trialing new technologies, optimizing patients’ access to care and working to ensure a positive patient experience,” she said.

Nationwide, a flourishing GI private practice community engages in ongoing dialogue about improvements, navigating a changing healthcare environment, and innovation. “That has been a surprising and wonderful twist in my career,” she added.

uem

Dr. Mathew fosters that dialogue through Gastro Broadcast, a podcast she shares with several other GI physicians. Targeted toward private GI practice, it highlights innovations within the community, providing updates on practice management and other technological advances.

In an interview, she spoke frankly about her favorite recent podcast guest, the challenges she’s faced in her career, and why her fellow GI specialists are her “tribe.”
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

Dr. Mathew: In medical school at Duke University, I was considering going into ob.gyn., but academically I was a little more drawn toward internal medicine. While I was in my residency at the University of Pennsylvania, I really clicked with the gastroenterologists. I enjoyed their sense of humor. They were dealing with complex medical issues but doing so with a sense of levity and enjoyment in their work. When I entered fellowship at the University of Washington, I felt like I found my tribe. This was a group of people who really love their work, love medicine, love being able to develop their procedural skills, and keep a sense of humor about themselves. I married a cardiologist (and he’s a hilarious cardiologist), but the world of cardiology is a little more buttoned up. I like that GI is a little more relaxed.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Mathew: My patients. They are funny and genuine, and they allow you into these moments of vulnerability — it’s an honor to walk through that together. I’m always so grateful for the trust they put in me in those moments. As my practice has matured, it’s been incredible to watch those relationships grow, as well as begin caring for husbands, wives, sons and daughters of my patients. I enjoy being a part of my community.

Q: Can you talk about an interesting recent guest you had on your podcast? Who was it and why did he or she stand out?

Dr. Mathew: Russ Arjal, MD, AGAF, cofounder, chief medical officer and president of Telebelly Health. He’s been working on a platform for exclusively telehealth services that improves access to care; pairing patients with brick-and-mortar gastroenterology to provide any necessary procedural care, such as colonoscopy and upper endoscopy. It was a fantastic interview. I think it’s so refreshing and inspiring to see how people innovate within the field of GI. On the procedural side, you see this all the time. With my advanced endoscopy colleagues, they’re constantly pushing the boundaries of what we can do procedurally. My academic colleagues are constantly thinking through what the next best treatment is or how best can we optimize care. And, in the world of private practice, we’re thinking about practice care delivery — how to improve access and make the experience of being a patient better, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes.
 

Q: What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?

Dr. Mathew: Imposter Syndrome is a very, very common issue, maybe somewhat more for women in GI. I think it’s something that everybody wrestles with to some degree. For me, it was developing confidence not just in my clinical skills, but in learning all the complexities of running a small business. It takes time to develop confidence in your abilities and judgment. I think to some degree, that’s normal. It just takes a while to settle into whatever your chosen career path is. Having a community and strong mentors to support me has made all the difference.

Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.

Dr. Mathew: One of the greatest challenges in my career has been navigating COVID — both with just the tremendous sea change it had on our ability to practice, as well as the financial consequences to someone in private practice. Those were very challenging times to deliver the care that was needed, protect staff, and to maintain a small business. Fortunately, as with many practices across the nation, we’ve emerged through that.

We pivoted, we innovated with telehealth and other services that allowed us to care for our patients. But there were a lot of lessons learned and a lot of difficult moments.
 

Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Mathew: My dad has taught me the value of hard work. Being a physician just comes in tandem with hard work. And my mom, who is a nurse, has always shown the importance of empathy. Without it, everything else is a little empty. Medicine is a combination of skill and hard work, but also an ability to connect with other people. Empathy is essential to that.

Q: Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.

Dr. Mathew: We have three children who are native Coloradans so skiing is their birthright. Our entire family are diehard skiers. This is our joy. When you talk about the beach versus mountains debate, we are firmly team mountains. On a perfect Saturday afternoon, I’m on the slopes with my little crew, just tearing it up, having a great time.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Texting

Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?

Washington, D.C.

Favorite breakfast?

Avocado toast

Place you most want to travel to?

South America

Favorite junk food?

Candy

Favorite season?

Winter

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

2 or 3

If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?

Ski coach

Best Halloween costume you ever wore?

Bunch of grapes

Favorite type of music?

Indie folk

Favorite movie genre?

Books, not into movies

Cat person or dog person?

Neither, but I am a certified beekeeper

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?

Anything by Queen

Introvert or extrovert?

Extrovert with introverted tendencies

Favorite holiday?

Thanksgiving

Optimist or pessimist?

100% glass half full

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Skyrizi (risankizumab-rzaa; AbbVie) for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults. This approval makes it the first specific anti-interleukin 23 monoclonal antibody indicated for both ulcerative colitis and moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. 

The drug is also approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

The safety and efficacy of Skyrizi for ulcerative colitis is supported by data from two phase 3 clinical trials: a 12-week induction study (INSPIRE) and a 52-week maintenance study (COMMAND). 

The data showed that clinical remission, the primary endpoint in both the induction and maintenance studies, was achieved along with endoscopic improvement, which was a key secondary endpoint.

“When treating patients with ulcerative colitis, it’s important to prioritize both early and sustained clinical remission as well as endoscopic improvement,” Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release. “This approval for Skyrizi is an important step toward addressing these treatment goals.”

For the treatment of ulcerative colitis, dosing includes a 12-week induction period with three 1200-mg doses delivered every 4 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of either 180 mg or 360 mg delivered every 8 weeks.

After the induction period, Skyrizi treatment can be maintained at home using an on-body injector (OBI). “The OBI is a hands-free device designed with patients in mind that adheres to the body and takes about 5 minutes to deliver the medication following preparation steps,” according to the news release. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Skyrizi (risankizumab-rzaa; AbbVie) for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults. This approval makes it the first specific anti-interleukin 23 monoclonal antibody indicated for both ulcerative colitis and moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. 

The drug is also approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

The safety and efficacy of Skyrizi for ulcerative colitis is supported by data from two phase 3 clinical trials: a 12-week induction study (INSPIRE) and a 52-week maintenance study (COMMAND). 

The data showed that clinical remission, the primary endpoint in both the induction and maintenance studies, was achieved along with endoscopic improvement, which was a key secondary endpoint.

“When treating patients with ulcerative colitis, it’s important to prioritize both early and sustained clinical remission as well as endoscopic improvement,” Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release. “This approval for Skyrizi is an important step toward addressing these treatment goals.”

For the treatment of ulcerative colitis, dosing includes a 12-week induction period with three 1200-mg doses delivered every 4 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of either 180 mg or 360 mg delivered every 8 weeks.

After the induction period, Skyrizi treatment can be maintained at home using an on-body injector (OBI). “The OBI is a hands-free device designed with patients in mind that adheres to the body and takes about 5 minutes to deliver the medication following preparation steps,” according to the news release. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Skyrizi (risankizumab-rzaa; AbbVie) for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults. This approval makes it the first specific anti-interleukin 23 monoclonal antibody indicated for both ulcerative colitis and moderate to severe Crohn’s disease. 

The drug is also approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis and moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

The safety and efficacy of Skyrizi for ulcerative colitis is supported by data from two phase 3 clinical trials: a 12-week induction study (INSPIRE) and a 52-week maintenance study (COMMAND). 

The data showed that clinical remission, the primary endpoint in both the induction and maintenance studies, was achieved along with endoscopic improvement, which was a key secondary endpoint.

“When treating patients with ulcerative colitis, it’s important to prioritize both early and sustained clinical remission as well as endoscopic improvement,” Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release. “This approval for Skyrizi is an important step toward addressing these treatment goals.”

For the treatment of ulcerative colitis, dosing includes a 12-week induction period with three 1200-mg doses delivered every 4 weeks followed by maintenance therapy of either 180 mg or 360 mg delivered every 8 weeks.

After the induction period, Skyrizi treatment can be maintained at home using an on-body injector (OBI). “The OBI is a hands-free device designed with patients in mind that adheres to the body and takes about 5 minutes to deliver the medication following preparation steps,” according to the news release. 

Full prescribing information is available online. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

wracledrunipojuvacriwusacos

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

wracledrunipojuvacriwusacos

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

wracledrunipojuvacriwusacos

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

TOPLINE: 

The intelligent Liver Function Testing (iLFT) platform can improve diagnosis and management of chronic liver disease in a primary care setting, new data show. 

METHODOLOGY:

• At the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024, researchers presented 5-year, real-world data of the iLFT platform from its use in NHS Tayside in Dundee, Scotland, which serves a population of 400,000. The platform has been available since 2018.
• The iLFT platform uses an automated algorithm that analyzes standard liver function test results.
• Abnormal results prompt the system to initiate further fibrosis scoring and relevant etiologic testing to determine the cause of liver dysfunction.
• The results of these tests combined with practitioner-entered clinical information produce a probable diagnosis and recommend a patient-management strategy.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Of the 26,459 iLFT tests performed between 2018 and 2023, 68.3% (18,079) required further testing beyond the initial liver function test, whereas 31.7% (8380) did not.
• Further testing generated 20,895 outcomes, of which, isolated abnormal alanine transaminase (ALT) without fibrosis was most frequent (23.7%). Abnormal ALT was found to be most likely due to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
• Overall, half of cascaded samples had a positive etiologic diagnosis. Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and MASLD were the most common etiologic outcomes identified.
• In addition, 20% of cascaded tests identified potentially significant liver fibrosis.
• A total of 69.9% of outcomes recommended that patients could be safely managed in primary care. The inclusion of automatic Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) testing in 2020 further reduced the requirement for referral to secondary care by 34%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Without this algorithm, the 18,000 patients who had algorithm-directed further testing would have had to go back to the [primary care practitioner] to obtain the additional tests, and the [primary care practitioner] would need to interpret them too,” said Damien Leith, MD, trainee hepatologist at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, who presented the findings. “iLFTs ensure the right patients get automated, appropriate follow-up testing and subsequent recommendation of referral to secondary care if necessary, and importantly iLFT helps the primary care practitioner identify the cause of chronic liver disease.” 

SOURCE:

This study was presented on June 6, 2024 at the EASL Congress 2024 (abstract OS-007-YI).

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the need for further refinement of the algorithm to increase the proportion of positive etiologic iLFT outcomes. More analysis is needed to optimize the cost-effectiveness of iLFT. 

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Leith reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The intelligent Liver Function Testing (iLFT) platform can improve diagnosis and management of chronic liver disease in a primary care setting, new data show. 

METHODOLOGY:

• At the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024, researchers presented 5-year, real-world data of the iLFT platform from its use in NHS Tayside in Dundee, Scotland, which serves a population of 400,000. The platform has been available since 2018.
• The iLFT platform uses an automated algorithm that analyzes standard liver function test results.
• Abnormal results prompt the system to initiate further fibrosis scoring and relevant etiologic testing to determine the cause of liver dysfunction.
• The results of these tests combined with practitioner-entered clinical information produce a probable diagnosis and recommend a patient-management strategy.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Of the 26,459 iLFT tests performed between 2018 and 2023, 68.3% (18,079) required further testing beyond the initial liver function test, whereas 31.7% (8380) did not.
• Further testing generated 20,895 outcomes, of which, isolated abnormal alanine transaminase (ALT) without fibrosis was most frequent (23.7%). Abnormal ALT was found to be most likely due to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
• Overall, half of cascaded samples had a positive etiologic diagnosis. Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and MASLD were the most common etiologic outcomes identified.
• In addition, 20% of cascaded tests identified potentially significant liver fibrosis.
• A total of 69.9% of outcomes recommended that patients could be safely managed in primary care. The inclusion of automatic Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) testing in 2020 further reduced the requirement for referral to secondary care by 34%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Without this algorithm, the 18,000 patients who had algorithm-directed further testing would have had to go back to the [primary care practitioner] to obtain the additional tests, and the [primary care practitioner] would need to interpret them too,” said Damien Leith, MD, trainee hepatologist at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, who presented the findings. “iLFTs ensure the right patients get automated, appropriate follow-up testing and subsequent recommendation of referral to secondary care if necessary, and importantly iLFT helps the primary care practitioner identify the cause of chronic liver disease.” 

SOURCE:

This study was presented on June 6, 2024 at the EASL Congress 2024 (abstract OS-007-YI).

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the need for further refinement of the algorithm to increase the proportion of positive etiologic iLFT outcomes. More analysis is needed to optimize the cost-effectiveness of iLFT. 

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Leith reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

The intelligent Liver Function Testing (iLFT) platform can improve diagnosis and management of chronic liver disease in a primary care setting, new data show. 

METHODOLOGY:

• At the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024, researchers presented 5-year, real-world data of the iLFT platform from its use in NHS Tayside in Dundee, Scotland, which serves a population of 400,000. The platform has been available since 2018.
• The iLFT platform uses an automated algorithm that analyzes standard liver function test results.
• Abnormal results prompt the system to initiate further fibrosis scoring and relevant etiologic testing to determine the cause of liver dysfunction.
• The results of these tests combined with practitioner-entered clinical information produce a probable diagnosis and recommend a patient-management strategy.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Of the 26,459 iLFT tests performed between 2018 and 2023, 68.3% (18,079) required further testing beyond the initial liver function test, whereas 31.7% (8380) did not.
• Further testing generated 20,895 outcomes, of which, isolated abnormal alanine transaminase (ALT) without fibrosis was most frequent (23.7%). Abnormal ALT was found to be most likely due to metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).
• Overall, half of cascaded samples had a positive etiologic diagnosis. Alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and MASLD were the most common etiologic outcomes identified.
• In addition, 20% of cascaded tests identified potentially significant liver fibrosis.
• A total of 69.9% of outcomes recommended that patients could be safely managed in primary care. The inclusion of automatic Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) testing in 2020 further reduced the requirement for referral to secondary care by 34%.

IN PRACTICE:

“Without this algorithm, the 18,000 patients who had algorithm-directed further testing would have had to go back to the [primary care practitioner] to obtain the additional tests, and the [primary care practitioner] would need to interpret them too,” said Damien Leith, MD, trainee hepatologist at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland, who presented the findings. “iLFTs ensure the right patients get automated, appropriate follow-up testing and subsequent recommendation of referral to secondary care if necessary, and importantly iLFT helps the primary care practitioner identify the cause of chronic liver disease.” 

SOURCE:

This study was presented on June 6, 2024 at the EASL Congress 2024 (abstract OS-007-YI).

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include the need for further refinement of the algorithm to increase the proportion of positive etiologic iLFT outcomes. More analysis is needed to optimize the cost-effectiveness of iLFT. 

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Leith reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval for Iqirvo (elafibranor; Ipsen) for treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who do not respond adequately to UDCA or as monotherapy in patients unable to tolerate UDCA. 

PBC is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease that destroys interlobular bile ducts and leads to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Left untreated, the disease can worsen over time, leading to cirrhosis and liver transplant and, in some cases, premature death. PBC also harms quality of life, with patients often experiencing severe fatigue and pruritus.

Iqirvo, an oral dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) alpha and delta agonist, is the first new drug approved in nearly a decade for treatment of PBC. 

Accelerated approval of Iqirvo for PBC was based on data from the phase 3 ELATIVE trial published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

The trial randomly assigned patients with PBC who had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with UDCA to receive either once-daily elafibranor (80 mg) or placebo. 

The primary endpoint was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction ≥ 15% from baseline, as well as normal total bilirubin levels.

Among 161 patients, a biochemical response was seen in 55 of 108 (51%) who received elafibranor vs 2 of 53 (4%) who received placebo. 

At week 52, the ALP level normalized in 15% of patients in the elafibranor group and none of the patients in the placebo group.

In a news release announcing approval of Iqirvo, the company notes that improvement in survival and prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated and that continued approval for PBC may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The most common adverse effects with Iqirvo, reported in ≥ 10% of study participants, were weight gain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Iqirvo is not recommended for people who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis. Full prescribing information is available online. 

The data show that Iqirvo is “an effective second-line treatment for patients with PBC with favorable benefit and risk data,” Kris Kowdley, MD, AGAF, director of the Liver Institute Northwest in Seattle, Washington, and a primary investigator on the ELATIVE study, said in the news release. 

The approval of Iqirvo “will allow healthcare providers in the US to address an unmet need with the potential to significantly reduce ALP levels for our patients with PBC,” Dr. Kowdley said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval for Iqirvo (elafibranor; Ipsen) for treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who do not respond adequately to UDCA or as monotherapy in patients unable to tolerate UDCA. 

PBC is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease that destroys interlobular bile ducts and leads to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Left untreated, the disease can worsen over time, leading to cirrhosis and liver transplant and, in some cases, premature death. PBC also harms quality of life, with patients often experiencing severe fatigue and pruritus.

Iqirvo, an oral dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) alpha and delta agonist, is the first new drug approved in nearly a decade for treatment of PBC. 

Accelerated approval of Iqirvo for PBC was based on data from the phase 3 ELATIVE trial published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

The trial randomly assigned patients with PBC who had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with UDCA to receive either once-daily elafibranor (80 mg) or placebo. 

The primary endpoint was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction ≥ 15% from baseline, as well as normal total bilirubin levels.

Among 161 patients, a biochemical response was seen in 55 of 108 (51%) who received elafibranor vs 2 of 53 (4%) who received placebo. 

At week 52, the ALP level normalized in 15% of patients in the elafibranor group and none of the patients in the placebo group.

In a news release announcing approval of Iqirvo, the company notes that improvement in survival and prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated and that continued approval for PBC may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The most common adverse effects with Iqirvo, reported in ≥ 10% of study participants, were weight gain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Iqirvo is not recommended for people who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis. Full prescribing information is available online. 

The data show that Iqirvo is “an effective second-line treatment for patients with PBC with favorable benefit and risk data,” Kris Kowdley, MD, AGAF, director of the Liver Institute Northwest in Seattle, Washington, and a primary investigator on the ELATIVE study, said in the news release. 

The approval of Iqirvo “will allow healthcare providers in the US to address an unmet need with the potential to significantly reduce ALP levels for our patients with PBC,” Dr. Kowdley said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval for Iqirvo (elafibranor; Ipsen) for treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults who do not respond adequately to UDCA or as monotherapy in patients unable to tolerate UDCA. 

PBC is a rare, chronic cholestatic liver disease that destroys interlobular bile ducts and leads to cholestasis and liver fibrosis. Left untreated, the disease can worsen over time, leading to cirrhosis and liver transplant and, in some cases, premature death. PBC also harms quality of life, with patients often experiencing severe fatigue and pruritus.

Iqirvo, an oral dual peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) alpha and delta agonist, is the first new drug approved in nearly a decade for treatment of PBC. 

Accelerated approval of Iqirvo for PBC was based on data from the phase 3 ELATIVE trial published last year in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

The trial randomly assigned patients with PBC who had an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects with UDCA to receive either once-daily elafibranor (80 mg) or placebo. 

The primary endpoint was a biochemical response, defined as an alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level < 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction ≥ 15% from baseline, as well as normal total bilirubin levels.

Among 161 patients, a biochemical response was seen in 55 of 108 (51%) who received elafibranor vs 2 of 53 (4%) who received placebo. 

At week 52, the ALP level normalized in 15% of patients in the elafibranor group and none of the patients in the placebo group.

In a news release announcing approval of Iqirvo, the company notes that improvement in survival and prevention of liver decompensation events have not been demonstrated and that continued approval for PBC may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in confirmatory trials.

The most common adverse effects with Iqirvo, reported in ≥ 10% of study participants, were weight gain, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Iqirvo is not recommended for people who have or develop decompensated cirrhosis. Full prescribing information is available online. 

The data show that Iqirvo is “an effective second-line treatment for patients with PBC with favorable benefit and risk data,” Kris Kowdley, MD, AGAF, director of the Liver Institute Northwest in Seattle, Washington, and a primary investigator on the ELATIVE study, said in the news release. 

The approval of Iqirvo “will allow healthcare providers in the US to address an unmet need with the potential to significantly reduce ALP levels for our patients with PBC,” Dr. Kowdley said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN — Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), also known as intestinal microbiota transplantation, significantly reduced recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, compared with placebo, in patients with cirrhosis on standard-of-care treatment, results of a phase 2 randomized controlled trial show. 

“Not only was FMT more beneficial, but also it didn’t matter which route of administration was used — oral or enema — which is good because people don’t really like enemas,” said Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and hepatologist at Richmond VA Medical Center.

Bajaj_Jasmohan_S_RICHMOND_web.jpg

Resetting the Gut

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled a total of 60 patients with cirrhosis who had experienced hepatic encephalopathy. Aged 61-65 years, participants had Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of 12-13, all were taking lactulose and rifaximin, and all had experienced their last hepatic encephalopathy episode 8-13 months prior. 

Participants had similar baseline cognition, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), and cirrhosis severity. Those with recent infections, taking other antibiotics, with a MELD score > 22, had received a transplant, or were immunosuppressed were excluded. 

Study participants were divided into four dose administration groups (n = 15 each): oral and enema active FMT therapy (group 1), oral active FMT and enema placebo (group 2), oral placebo and enema active FMT (group 3), and oral and enema placebo (group 4). 

The range of FMT dose frequency was zero (all placebo), or one, two, or three FMT administrations, each given 1 month apart. 

Two thirds of those receiving active FMT were given omnivore-donor FMT, and one third were given vegan-donor FMT, in addition to receiving standard of care. 

“Colony-forming units were standard and the same whether given via oral capsule or enema,” Dr. Bajaj said. This is “similar to what we used in our phase 1 study.”

Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed with 6-month data. The primary outcomes were safety and hepatic encephalopathy recurrence defined as ≥ grade 2 on West-Haven criteria. Secondary outcomes included other adverse events, changes in infections, severity of cirrhosis and cognition, and patient-reported outcomes. A statistical regression for hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was also performed. Patients were followed for 6 months or until death.
 

One Dose of FMT Better Than None

Hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was highest (40%) in group 4 patients, compared with those in group 1 (13%), group 2 (13%), and group 3 (0%), as were liver-related hospitalizations (47% vs 7%-20%). 

SIP total/physical and psych scores improved with FMT (P = .003).

When all patients were included in the analysis, the hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was related to dose number (odds radio [OR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.79; P = .02), male sex (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.89; P = .04), and physical SIP (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10, P = .05). However, when analyzing results from FMT recipients only, FMT dose, route of administration, and donor source were not found to affect recurrence. 

Of those on placebo alone, six patients (40%) had a recurrence, compared with four on FMT (8.8%) in the combined FMT groups. 

“As long as a patient received at least one FMT dose, they had a better response than a patient who had none,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Six patients dropped out; two in group 1 died after hepatic encephalopathy and falls, and one in group 2 died after a seizure. Three others did not return for follow-up visits. Four patients developed infections, including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, cholecystitis, and cellulitis, all unrelated to FMT. 

“I think many patients in Western countries are underserved because apart from lactulose and rifaximin, there is little else to give them,” Dr. Bajaj said. “The assumption is because rifaximin kills everything, we shouldn’t give FMT. But here, we administered it to a harsh and hostile wasteland of microbiota, and it still got a toehold and generated a reduction in hepatic encephalopathy.”

He pointed out that in smaller prior studies, the effects lasted up to 1 year. 
 

Setting the Stage for Phase 3 Trials

Dr. Bajaj noted that this phase 2 study sets the stage for larger phase 3 trials in patients not responding to first-line therapy. 

“Given how well-tolerated and effective FMT appears to be in these patients, if the larger phase 3 trial shows similar results, I can imagine FMT becoming a standard therapy,” said Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

Kelly_Colleen_WEB.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN — Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), also known as intestinal microbiota transplantation, significantly reduced recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, compared with placebo, in patients with cirrhosis on standard-of-care treatment, results of a phase 2 randomized controlled trial show. 

“Not only was FMT more beneficial, but also it didn’t matter which route of administration was used — oral or enema — which is good because people don’t really like enemas,” said Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and hepatologist at Richmond VA Medical Center.

Bajaj_Jasmohan_S_RICHMOND_web.jpg

Resetting the Gut

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled a total of 60 patients with cirrhosis who had experienced hepatic encephalopathy. Aged 61-65 years, participants had Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of 12-13, all were taking lactulose and rifaximin, and all had experienced their last hepatic encephalopathy episode 8-13 months prior. 

Participants had similar baseline cognition, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), and cirrhosis severity. Those with recent infections, taking other antibiotics, with a MELD score > 22, had received a transplant, or were immunosuppressed were excluded. 

Study participants were divided into four dose administration groups (n = 15 each): oral and enema active FMT therapy (group 1), oral active FMT and enema placebo (group 2), oral placebo and enema active FMT (group 3), and oral and enema placebo (group 4). 

The range of FMT dose frequency was zero (all placebo), or one, two, or three FMT administrations, each given 1 month apart. 

Two thirds of those receiving active FMT were given omnivore-donor FMT, and one third were given vegan-donor FMT, in addition to receiving standard of care. 

“Colony-forming units were standard and the same whether given via oral capsule or enema,” Dr. Bajaj said. This is “similar to what we used in our phase 1 study.”

Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed with 6-month data. The primary outcomes were safety and hepatic encephalopathy recurrence defined as ≥ grade 2 on West-Haven criteria. Secondary outcomes included other adverse events, changes in infections, severity of cirrhosis and cognition, and patient-reported outcomes. A statistical regression for hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was also performed. Patients were followed for 6 months or until death.
 

One Dose of FMT Better Than None

Hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was highest (40%) in group 4 patients, compared with those in group 1 (13%), group 2 (13%), and group 3 (0%), as were liver-related hospitalizations (47% vs 7%-20%). 

SIP total/physical and psych scores improved with FMT (P = .003).

When all patients were included in the analysis, the hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was related to dose number (odds radio [OR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.79; P = .02), male sex (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.89; P = .04), and physical SIP (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10, P = .05). However, when analyzing results from FMT recipients only, FMT dose, route of administration, and donor source were not found to affect recurrence. 

Of those on placebo alone, six patients (40%) had a recurrence, compared with four on FMT (8.8%) in the combined FMT groups. 

“As long as a patient received at least one FMT dose, they had a better response than a patient who had none,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Six patients dropped out; two in group 1 died after hepatic encephalopathy and falls, and one in group 2 died after a seizure. Three others did not return for follow-up visits. Four patients developed infections, including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, cholecystitis, and cellulitis, all unrelated to FMT. 

“I think many patients in Western countries are underserved because apart from lactulose and rifaximin, there is little else to give them,” Dr. Bajaj said. “The assumption is because rifaximin kills everything, we shouldn’t give FMT. But here, we administered it to a harsh and hostile wasteland of microbiota, and it still got a toehold and generated a reduction in hepatic encephalopathy.”

He pointed out that in smaller prior studies, the effects lasted up to 1 year. 
 

Setting the Stage for Phase 3 Trials

Dr. Bajaj noted that this phase 2 study sets the stage for larger phase 3 trials in patients not responding to first-line therapy. 

“Given how well-tolerated and effective FMT appears to be in these patients, if the larger phase 3 trial shows similar results, I can imagine FMT becoming a standard therapy,” said Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

Kelly_Colleen_WEB.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN — Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), also known as intestinal microbiota transplantation, significantly reduced recurrence of hepatic encephalopathy, compared with placebo, in patients with cirrhosis on standard-of-care treatment, results of a phase 2 randomized controlled trial show. 

“Not only was FMT more beneficial, but also it didn’t matter which route of administration was used — oral or enema — which is good because people don’t really like enemas,” said Jasmohan S. Bajaj, MD, AGAF, professor, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and hepatologist at Richmond VA Medical Center.

Bajaj_Jasmohan_S_RICHMOND_web.jpg

Resetting the Gut

The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled a total of 60 patients with cirrhosis who had experienced hepatic encephalopathy. Aged 61-65 years, participants had Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of 12-13, all were taking lactulose and rifaximin, and all had experienced their last hepatic encephalopathy episode 8-13 months prior. 

Participants had similar baseline cognition, Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), and cirrhosis severity. Those with recent infections, taking other antibiotics, with a MELD score > 22, had received a transplant, or were immunosuppressed were excluded. 

Study participants were divided into four dose administration groups (n = 15 each): oral and enema active FMT therapy (group 1), oral active FMT and enema placebo (group 2), oral placebo and enema active FMT (group 3), and oral and enema placebo (group 4). 

The range of FMT dose frequency was zero (all placebo), or one, two, or three FMT administrations, each given 1 month apart. 

Two thirds of those receiving active FMT were given omnivore-donor FMT, and one third were given vegan-donor FMT, in addition to receiving standard of care. 

“Colony-forming units were standard and the same whether given via oral capsule or enema,” Dr. Bajaj said. This is “similar to what we used in our phase 1 study.”

Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed with 6-month data. The primary outcomes were safety and hepatic encephalopathy recurrence defined as ≥ grade 2 on West-Haven criteria. Secondary outcomes included other adverse events, changes in infections, severity of cirrhosis and cognition, and patient-reported outcomes. A statistical regression for hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was also performed. Patients were followed for 6 months or until death.
 

One Dose of FMT Better Than None

Hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was highest (40%) in group 4 patients, compared with those in group 1 (13%), group 2 (13%), and group 3 (0%), as were liver-related hospitalizations (47% vs 7%-20%). 

SIP total/physical and psych scores improved with FMT (P = .003).

When all patients were included in the analysis, the hepatic encephalopathy recurrence was related to dose number (odds radio [OR], 0.27; 95% CI, 0.10-0.79; P = .02), male sex (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.89; P = .04), and physical SIP (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10, P = .05). However, when analyzing results from FMT recipients only, FMT dose, route of administration, and donor source were not found to affect recurrence. 

Of those on placebo alone, six patients (40%) had a recurrence, compared with four on FMT (8.8%) in the combined FMT groups. 

“As long as a patient received at least one FMT dose, they had a better response than a patient who had none,” Dr. Bajaj said.

Six patients dropped out; two in group 1 died after hepatic encephalopathy and falls, and one in group 2 died after a seizure. Three others did not return for follow-up visits. Four patients developed infections, including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, cholecystitis, and cellulitis, all unrelated to FMT. 

“I think many patients in Western countries are underserved because apart from lactulose and rifaximin, there is little else to give them,” Dr. Bajaj said. “The assumption is because rifaximin kills everything, we shouldn’t give FMT. But here, we administered it to a harsh and hostile wasteland of microbiota, and it still got a toehold and generated a reduction in hepatic encephalopathy.”

He pointed out that in smaller prior studies, the effects lasted up to 1 year. 
 

Setting the Stage for Phase 3 Trials

Dr. Bajaj noted that this phase 2 study sets the stage for larger phase 3 trials in patients not responding to first-line therapy. 

“Given how well-tolerated and effective FMT appears to be in these patients, if the larger phase 3 trial shows similar results, I can imagine FMT becoming a standard therapy,” said Colleen R. Kelly, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

Kelly_Colleen_WEB.jpg

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ethical imperative in healthcare necessitates equitable delivery of care to all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status or insurance coverage. This principle is rooted in the concept of justice and is crucial to achieving health equity.

As gastroenterologists, despite our various practice settings, we have seen the harmful effects of economic and social disparities on health outcomes. We must therefore ensure that we acknowledge the existence of these disparities, and then begin to provide a framework that allows us to ethically and successfully navigate these complexities for our patients and our affiliated structures.

McCutchen_Aja_ATLANTA_web.jpg

The following cases illustrate the complexities and ethical dilemmas that gastroenterology and hepatology healthcare professionals encounter in delivering care within the traditional healthcare system.

• Case 1: A 44-year-old male presents to the hospital with intermittent rectal bleeding every few weeks without associated abdominal pain or weight loss and not associated with straining. He has bowel movements every 2-3 days. There is no family history of underlying gastrointestinal disease or associated neoplasm. He is accompanied at the time of the interview by his coworker who offered to drive him to the hospital as he is having personal car trouble. Physical examination reveals normal hemodynamics, abdomen is benign, a digital rectal exam reveals small internal hemorrhoids without pain. Hemoglobin is 10, MCV 85. There is scant blood on the glove. He is uninsured. A GI consult is placed to determine the disposition of the patient. The resident on service suggests outpatient follow-up given low risk of clinical deterioration.
• Case 2: A 28-year-old woman postpartum 6 weeks presents in the office with a history of ulcerative colitis which was diagnosed 2 years prior. She was initially placed on steroid therapy. She underwent a colonoscopy at the time of her diagnosis and was following with a gastroenterologist at which time she was found to have moderate left-sided disease with a modified Mayo score of 9. She complains of urgency and rectal bleeding. She saw a gastroenterologist during her pregnancy and was placed on oral mesalamine, which she remains on at the time of evaluation. Once her physical examination is completed and laboratory values are reviewed, you begin to discuss advanced therapies including biologics as she has failed conventional therapies.
• Case 3: You receive a phone call from an outside hospital about a potential transfer for a 46-year-old male who is an immigrant of unknown citizenship status with fulminant liver failure. He meets all criteria including encephalopathy and coagulopathy. He drinks only socially. His secondary liver workup for extensive disease including ceruloplasmin remains pending. Viral hepatology serologies and autoimmune serologies are negative.

Challenges to the Delivery of Equitable Care

These cases underscore the challenges of delivering equitable care within a system that often fails to address the social determinants of health (SDOH). The disparity in the evaluation and treatment of patients based on insurance status not only affects patient outcomes, but also emphasizes the ethical dilemma of balancing cost with population health management.

jiwriphetuwragopricestubrucanuwruwiphekikithawrelacreborecohithouostoprajoprocolewranowrajiswaspuchihastubrukonevitreuenobujeuobrucriboswefrecrespacraslothupatihanuclochodrishisoposhostipekarahobanimowavespocladritrejochothopehevetujadrigechahera

The introduction of measures SDOH-1 and SDOH-2 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the 2023 IPPS Final Rule is a step towards requiring hospitals to systematically collect patient-level SDOH data, aiming to establish meaningful collaborations between healthcare providers and community-based organizations for whole-person care.¹ The primary goal is to allow ecosystems to collect patient-level social risk factors followed by the creation of meaningful collaboration between healthcare providers and the community-based organizations.

The office settings may or may not implement the SDOH and the current electronic medical record systems. However, from a social history standpoint and certainly from a decision standpoint, the impact of SDOH is realized in all settings.
 

Interplay of SDOH and Ethical Considerations

The recognition of social determinants of health is crucial for ethical healthcare delivery. In the first case, considering the patient’s identified social determinants of health — including lack of insurance and transportation, combined with the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals under 55 — an argument could be made for admitting the patient under observation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Data have shown disparities in treatment and referrals in emergency care setting for Black patients with rectal bleeding.² It is imperative that we recognize these existing disparities in diagnosis and outcomes, along with determining SDOH to appropriately come to a final disposition. This approach aligns with the principle of justice and the imperative to deliver equitable care.

In the third case study, we have a patient facing the life-or-death situation of fulminant liver failure. He requires an expeditious decision to be made about transfer candidacy for liver transplant evaluation by the hepatology team.
 

Impact of Insurance Status on Healthcare Access

Insurance status significantly influences access to healthcare and disparities in treatment outcomes. As seen in case 2 and case 3, our therapies often hinge upon access.

In the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) case, the therapy that we will choose for our IBD patient may be more influenced by access than efficacy. In a national sample of children with Crohn’s disease, publicly insured children were more likely to receive a biologic within 18 months of diagnosis compared to children with private insurance.³ This would suggest that those with private insurance perhaps experience increased barriers.

In the IBD case that we presented here, we do have a publicly insured woman who will face a potential loss of her Medicaid coverage. Our therapeutic decision will therefore not just rely on risk stratification and individualized approach, but rather the programs that are put in place by our pharmaceutical partners to support a future self-pay patient. This may or may not be favorable to her outcome. This discrepancy points to systemic inequalities in healthcare access and the need for policies that ensure equitable treatment for all, regardless of insurance status.
 

Conclusion

The delivery of care in healthcare is an ethical imperative that demands equity and justice. The cases discussed above illustrate the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and the ethical challenges in providing equitable care.

Systematic efforts to address social determinants of health, as mandated by recent CMS measures, along with a commitment to ethical principles, are essential steps toward reducing disparities and ensuring that all individuals receive the care they need. As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, particularly in areas like gastrointestinal health, addressing these ethical and systemic challenges becomes even more critical for the sustainability of the healthcare system and the well-being of the population it serves.

Gastrointestinal healthcare expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for GI symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with primary GI diagnosis.⁴ The use of higher-acuity settings and lack of continuity of care, and the under-recognition and lack of longitudinal framework to follow those families at risk continue to compromise our healthcare system. We must begin to create a framework to provide equitable care for which the cornerstone should be those identified social determinants of health.

Dr. McCutchen is a gastroenterologist at United Digestive, Atlanta, Georgia. She is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. Dr. Boules is vice president of global medical and scientific affairs at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Cleveland, Ohio.

References

1. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-10/pdf/2022-16472.pdf.

2. Shields HM et al. Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.008.

3. Quiros JA et al. Insurance type influences access to biologics and healthcare utilization in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otab057.

4. Peery AF et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017.

The ethical imperative in healthcare necessitates equitable delivery of care to all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status or insurance coverage. This principle is rooted in the concept of justice and is crucial to achieving health equity.

As gastroenterologists, despite our various practice settings, we have seen the harmful effects of economic and social disparities on health outcomes. We must therefore ensure that we acknowledge the existence of these disparities, and then begin to provide a framework that allows us to ethically and successfully navigate these complexities for our patients and our affiliated structures.

McCutchen_Aja_ATLANTA_web.jpg

The following cases illustrate the complexities and ethical dilemmas that gastroenterology and hepatology healthcare professionals encounter in delivering care within the traditional healthcare system.

• Case 1: A 44-year-old male presents to the hospital with intermittent rectal bleeding every few weeks without associated abdominal pain or weight loss and not associated with straining. He has bowel movements every 2-3 days. There is no family history of underlying gastrointestinal disease or associated neoplasm. He is accompanied at the time of the interview by his coworker who offered to drive him to the hospital as he is having personal car trouble. Physical examination reveals normal hemodynamics, abdomen is benign, a digital rectal exam reveals small internal hemorrhoids without pain. Hemoglobin is 10, MCV 85. There is scant blood on the glove. He is uninsured. A GI consult is placed to determine the disposition of the patient. The resident on service suggests outpatient follow-up given low risk of clinical deterioration.
• Case 2: A 28-year-old woman postpartum 6 weeks presents in the office with a history of ulcerative colitis which was diagnosed 2 years prior. She was initially placed on steroid therapy. She underwent a colonoscopy at the time of her diagnosis and was following with a gastroenterologist at which time she was found to have moderate left-sided disease with a modified Mayo score of 9. She complains of urgency and rectal bleeding. She saw a gastroenterologist during her pregnancy and was placed on oral mesalamine, which she remains on at the time of evaluation. Once her physical examination is completed and laboratory values are reviewed, you begin to discuss advanced therapies including biologics as she has failed conventional therapies.
• Case 3: You receive a phone call from an outside hospital about a potential transfer for a 46-year-old male who is an immigrant of unknown citizenship status with fulminant liver failure. He meets all criteria including encephalopathy and coagulopathy. He drinks only socially. His secondary liver workup for extensive disease including ceruloplasmin remains pending. Viral hepatology serologies and autoimmune serologies are negative.

Challenges to the Delivery of Equitable Care

These cases underscore the challenges of delivering equitable care within a system that often fails to address the social determinants of health (SDOH). The disparity in the evaluation and treatment of patients based on insurance status not only affects patient outcomes, but also emphasizes the ethical dilemma of balancing cost with population health management.

jiwriphetuwragopricestubrucanuwruwiphekikithawrelacreborecohithouostoprajoprocolewranowrajiswaspuchihastubrukonevitreuenobujeuobrucriboswefrecrespacraslothupatihanuclochodrishisoposhostipekarahobanimowavespocladritrejochothopehevetujadrigechahera

The introduction of measures SDOH-1 and SDOH-2 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the 2023 IPPS Final Rule is a step towards requiring hospitals to systematically collect patient-level SDOH data, aiming to establish meaningful collaborations between healthcare providers and community-based organizations for whole-person care.¹ The primary goal is to allow ecosystems to collect patient-level social risk factors followed by the creation of meaningful collaboration between healthcare providers and the community-based organizations.

The office settings may or may not implement the SDOH and the current electronic medical record systems. However, from a social history standpoint and certainly from a decision standpoint, the impact of SDOH is realized in all settings.
 

Interplay of SDOH and Ethical Considerations

The recognition of social determinants of health is crucial for ethical healthcare delivery. In the first case, considering the patient’s identified social determinants of health — including lack of insurance and transportation, combined with the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals under 55 — an argument could be made for admitting the patient under observation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Data have shown disparities in treatment and referrals in emergency care setting for Black patients with rectal bleeding.² It is imperative that we recognize these existing disparities in diagnosis and outcomes, along with determining SDOH to appropriately come to a final disposition. This approach aligns with the principle of justice and the imperative to deliver equitable care.

In the third case study, we have a patient facing the life-or-death situation of fulminant liver failure. He requires an expeditious decision to be made about transfer candidacy for liver transplant evaluation by the hepatology team.
 

Impact of Insurance Status on Healthcare Access

Insurance status significantly influences access to healthcare and disparities in treatment outcomes. As seen in case 2 and case 3, our therapies often hinge upon access.

In the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) case, the therapy that we will choose for our IBD patient may be more influenced by access than efficacy. In a national sample of children with Crohn’s disease, publicly insured children were more likely to receive a biologic within 18 months of diagnosis compared to children with private insurance.³ This would suggest that those with private insurance perhaps experience increased barriers.

In the IBD case that we presented here, we do have a publicly insured woman who will face a potential loss of her Medicaid coverage. Our therapeutic decision will therefore not just rely on risk stratification and individualized approach, but rather the programs that are put in place by our pharmaceutical partners to support a future self-pay patient. This may or may not be favorable to her outcome. This discrepancy points to systemic inequalities in healthcare access and the need for policies that ensure equitable treatment for all, regardless of insurance status.
 

Conclusion

The delivery of care in healthcare is an ethical imperative that demands equity and justice. The cases discussed above illustrate the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and the ethical challenges in providing equitable care.

Systematic efforts to address social determinants of health, as mandated by recent CMS measures, along with a commitment to ethical principles, are essential steps toward reducing disparities and ensuring that all individuals receive the care they need. As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, particularly in areas like gastrointestinal health, addressing these ethical and systemic challenges becomes even more critical for the sustainability of the healthcare system and the well-being of the population it serves.

Gastrointestinal healthcare expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for GI symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with primary GI diagnosis.⁴ The use of higher-acuity settings and lack of continuity of care, and the under-recognition and lack of longitudinal framework to follow those families at risk continue to compromise our healthcare system. We must begin to create a framework to provide equitable care for which the cornerstone should be those identified social determinants of health.

Dr. McCutchen is a gastroenterologist at United Digestive, Atlanta, Georgia. She is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. Dr. Boules is vice president of global medical and scientific affairs at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Cleveland, Ohio.

References

1. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-10/pdf/2022-16472.pdf.

2. Shields HM et al. Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.008.

3. Quiros JA et al. Insurance type influences access to biologics and healthcare utilization in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otab057.

4. Peery AF et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017.

The ethical imperative in healthcare necessitates equitable delivery of care to all individuals, regardless of their socio-economic status or insurance coverage. This principle is rooted in the concept of justice and is crucial to achieving health equity.

As gastroenterologists, despite our various practice settings, we have seen the harmful effects of economic and social disparities on health outcomes. We must therefore ensure that we acknowledge the existence of these disparities, and then begin to provide a framework that allows us to ethically and successfully navigate these complexities for our patients and our affiliated structures.

McCutchen_Aja_ATLANTA_web.jpg

The following cases illustrate the complexities and ethical dilemmas that gastroenterology and hepatology healthcare professionals encounter in delivering care within the traditional healthcare system.

• Case 1: A 44-year-old male presents to the hospital with intermittent rectal bleeding every few weeks without associated abdominal pain or weight loss and not associated with straining. He has bowel movements every 2-3 days. There is no family history of underlying gastrointestinal disease or associated neoplasm. He is accompanied at the time of the interview by his coworker who offered to drive him to the hospital as he is having personal car trouble. Physical examination reveals normal hemodynamics, abdomen is benign, a digital rectal exam reveals small internal hemorrhoids without pain. Hemoglobin is 10, MCV 85. There is scant blood on the glove. He is uninsured. A GI consult is placed to determine the disposition of the patient. The resident on service suggests outpatient follow-up given low risk of clinical deterioration.
• Case 2: A 28-year-old woman postpartum 6 weeks presents in the office with a history of ulcerative colitis which was diagnosed 2 years prior. She was initially placed on steroid therapy. She underwent a colonoscopy at the time of her diagnosis and was following with a gastroenterologist at which time she was found to have moderate left-sided disease with a modified Mayo score of 9. She complains of urgency and rectal bleeding. She saw a gastroenterologist during her pregnancy and was placed on oral mesalamine, which she remains on at the time of evaluation. Once her physical examination is completed and laboratory values are reviewed, you begin to discuss advanced therapies including biologics as she has failed conventional therapies.
• Case 3: You receive a phone call from an outside hospital about a potential transfer for a 46-year-old male who is an immigrant of unknown citizenship status with fulminant liver failure. He meets all criteria including encephalopathy and coagulopathy. He drinks only socially. His secondary liver workup for extensive disease including ceruloplasmin remains pending. Viral hepatology serologies and autoimmune serologies are negative.

Challenges to the Delivery of Equitable Care

These cases underscore the challenges of delivering equitable care within a system that often fails to address the social determinants of health (SDOH). The disparity in the evaluation and treatment of patients based on insurance status not only affects patient outcomes, but also emphasizes the ethical dilemma of balancing cost with population health management.

jiwriphetuwragopricestubrucanuwruwiphekikithawrelacreborecohithouostoprajoprocolewranowrajiswaspuchihastubrukonevitreuenobujeuobrucriboswefrecrespacraslothupatihanuclochodrishisoposhostipekarahobanimowavespocladritrejochothopehevetujadrigechahera

The introduction of measures SDOH-1 and SDOH-2 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in the 2023 IPPS Final Rule is a step towards requiring hospitals to systematically collect patient-level SDOH data, aiming to establish meaningful collaborations between healthcare providers and community-based organizations for whole-person care.¹ The primary goal is to allow ecosystems to collect patient-level social risk factors followed by the creation of meaningful collaboration between healthcare providers and the community-based organizations.

The office settings may or may not implement the SDOH and the current electronic medical record systems. However, from a social history standpoint and certainly from a decision standpoint, the impact of SDOH is realized in all settings.
 

Interplay of SDOH and Ethical Considerations

The recognition of social determinants of health is crucial for ethical healthcare delivery. In the first case, considering the patient’s identified social determinants of health — including lack of insurance and transportation, combined with the rising incidence of colorectal cancer in individuals under 55 — an argument could be made for admitting the patient under observation for inpatient colonoscopy.

Data have shown disparities in treatment and referrals in emergency care setting for Black patients with rectal bleeding.² It is imperative that we recognize these existing disparities in diagnosis and outcomes, along with determining SDOH to appropriately come to a final disposition. This approach aligns with the principle of justice and the imperative to deliver equitable care.

In the third case study, we have a patient facing the life-or-death situation of fulminant liver failure. He requires an expeditious decision to be made about transfer candidacy for liver transplant evaluation by the hepatology team.
 

Impact of Insurance Status on Healthcare Access

Insurance status significantly influences access to healthcare and disparities in treatment outcomes. As seen in case 2 and case 3, our therapies often hinge upon access.

In the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) case, the therapy that we will choose for our IBD patient may be more influenced by access than efficacy. In a national sample of children with Crohn’s disease, publicly insured children were more likely to receive a biologic within 18 months of diagnosis compared to children with private insurance.³ This would suggest that those with private insurance perhaps experience increased barriers.

In the IBD case that we presented here, we do have a publicly insured woman who will face a potential loss of her Medicaid coverage. Our therapeutic decision will therefore not just rely on risk stratification and individualized approach, but rather the programs that are put in place by our pharmaceutical partners to support a future self-pay patient. This may or may not be favorable to her outcome. This discrepancy points to systemic inequalities in healthcare access and the need for policies that ensure equitable treatment for all, regardless of insurance status.
 

Conclusion

The delivery of care in healthcare is an ethical imperative that demands equity and justice. The cases discussed above illustrate the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors, insurance status, and the ethical challenges in providing equitable care.

Systematic efforts to address social determinants of health, as mandated by recent CMS measures, along with a commitment to ethical principles, are essential steps toward reducing disparities and ensuring that all individuals receive the care they need. As healthcare expenditures continue to rise, particularly in areas like gastrointestinal health, addressing these ethical and systemic challenges becomes even more critical for the sustainability of the healthcare system and the well-being of the population it serves.

Gastrointestinal healthcare expenditures totaled $119.6 billion in 2018. Annually there were more than 36.8 million ambulatory visits for GI symptoms and 43.4 million ambulatory visits with primary GI diagnosis.⁴ The use of higher-acuity settings and lack of continuity of care, and the under-recognition and lack of longitudinal framework to follow those families at risk continue to compromise our healthcare system. We must begin to create a framework to provide equitable care for which the cornerstone should be those identified social determinants of health.

Dr. McCutchen is a gastroenterologist at United Digestive, Atlanta, Georgia. She is vice chair of the AGA Research Foundation. Dr. Boules is vice president of global medical and scientific affairs at Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Cleveland, Ohio.

References

1. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-08-10/pdf/2022-16472.pdf.

2. Shields HM et al. Disparities in evaluation of patients with rectal bleeding 40 years and older. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.008.

3. Quiros JA et al. Insurance type influences access to biologics and healthcare utilization in pediatric Crohn’s disease. Crohns Colitis 360. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otab057.

4. Peery AF et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) is proud to announce that it has selected 79 recipients to receive research funding through the annual AGA Research Foundation Awards Program. The program serves as a catalyst for discovery and career growth among the most promising researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology.

“This year’s awardees are an exceptional group of investigators who are committed to furthering patient care through research,” said Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, chair, AGA Research Foundation. “The AGA Research Foundation is proud to fund these investigators and their ongoing efforts to advance GI research at a critical time in their careers. We believe the Foundation’s investment will ultimately enable new discoveries in gastroenterology and hepatology that will benefit patients.”

Treatment options for digestive diseases begin with vigorous research. The AGA Research Foundation supports medical investigators as they advance our understanding of gastrointestinal and liver conditions. Here are this year’s award recipients:
 

RESEARCH SCHOLAR AWARDS

AGA Research Scholar Award 

• Karen Jane Dunbar, PhD, Columbia University, New York, New York
• Aaron Hecht, MD, PhD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Sarah Maxwell, MD, University of California, San Francisco
• Chung Sang Tse, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, MD, PhD, Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachusetts

AGA-Bristol Myers Squibb Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

• Joseph R. Burclaff, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

SPECIALTY AWARDS

AGA-Caroline Craig Augustyn & Damian Augustyn Award in Digestive Cancer

• Swathi Eluri, MD, MSCR, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

AGA-R. Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer

• Jianwen Que, MD, PhD, Columbia University, New York, New York

AGA-Pfizer Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award

• Lianna Wood, MD, PhD, Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachusetts

AGA-Ironwood Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award

• ZeNan Li Chang, MD, PhD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

PILOT AWARDS

AGA Pilot Research Award

• Linda C. Cummings, MD, MS, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
• Pooja Mehta, MD, MSCS, University of Colorado Denver
• Guilherme Piovezani Ramos, MD, Boston Children’s Hospital
• Simon Schwoerer, PhD, University of Chicago, Illinois
• Yankai Wen, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

AGA-Pfizer Pilot Research Award in Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis

• Alice Cheng, PhD, Stanford University, California
• Petra Hirsova, PhD, PharmD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Sarah Maxwell, MD, University of California, San Francisco

AGA-Pfizer Pilot Research Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

• David Boone, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
• Sara Chloe Di Rienzi, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
• Jared Andrew Sninsky, MD, MSCR, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AWARDS

AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Surf for Success Program

• Eli Burstein, Yeshiva University, New York, New York
• Chloe Carlisle, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
• Adna Hassan, University of Minnesota Rochester
• Nicole Rodriguez Hilario, Barry University, Miami, Florida
• Maryam Jimoh, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio
• Viktoriya Kalinina, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

AGA-Dr. Harvey Young Education & Development Foundation’s Young Guts Scholar Program

• Rafaella Lavalle Lacerda de Almeida, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
• Lara Cheesman, John’s Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
• Cass Condray, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
• Daniel Juarez, Columbia University, New York, New York
• Jason Lin, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Riya Malhotra, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
• Brian Nguyen, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
• Mahmoud (Moudy) Salem, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

ABSTRACT AWARDS

AGA Fellow Abstract of the Year Award

• Andrea Tou, MD Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

AGA Fellow Abstract Awards

• Manik Aggarwal, MBBS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Kole Buckley, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Jane Ha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Brent Hiramoto, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Md Obaidul Islam, PhD, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
• Kanak Kennedy, MD, MPH, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Hanseul Kim, PhD, MS, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Chiraag Kulkarni, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California
• Su-Hyung Lee, PhD, DVM, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
• Caroline Muiler, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
• Sarah Najjar, PhD, New York University, New York, New York
• Ronaldo Panganiban, MD, PhD Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
• Perseus Patel, MD, Stanford University, California
• Hassan Sinan, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
• Patricia Snarski, PhD, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
• Fernando Vicentini, PhD, MS, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
• Remington Winter, MD, University of Manitoba – Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• Tiaosi Xing, PhD, MBBS, MS, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania

AGA Student Abstract of the Year Award

• Jazmyne Jackson, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

AGA Student Abstract Award

• Valentina Alvarez, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
• Yasaman Bahojb Habibyan, MS, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Tessa Herman, MD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota
• Jason Jin, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
• Frederikke Larsen, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
• Kara McNamara, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
• Julia Sessions, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
• Scott Silvey, MS, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
• Vijaya Sundaram, Marshall University School of Medicine, Huntington, West Virginia
• Kafayat Yusuf, MS, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas

AGA–Eric Esrailian Student Abstract Prize

• Brent Gawey, MD, MS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Fei Li, MBBS, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Emily Wong, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• Jordan Woodard, MD, Prisma Health – Upstate, Greenville, South Carolina

AGA–Radhika Srinivasan Student Abstract Prize

• Raz Abdulqadir, MS, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
• Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, MHS, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee
• Jared Morris, MD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg City, Manitoba, Canada
• Rachel Stubler, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

AGA Abstract Award for Health Disparities Research

• Saqr Alsakarneh, MD University of Missouri-Kansas City
• Marco Noriega, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
• Temitope Olasehinde, MD, University Hospitals/Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
• Gabrielle Waclawik, MD, MPH, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Award

• W. Keith Tan, MBChB, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
• Elsa van Liere, MD Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) is proud to announce that it has selected 79 recipients to receive research funding through the annual AGA Research Foundation Awards Program. The program serves as a catalyst for discovery and career growth among the most promising researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology.

“This year’s awardees are an exceptional group of investigators who are committed to furthering patient care through research,” said Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, chair, AGA Research Foundation. “The AGA Research Foundation is proud to fund these investigators and their ongoing efforts to advance GI research at a critical time in their careers. We believe the Foundation’s investment will ultimately enable new discoveries in gastroenterology and hepatology that will benefit patients.”

Treatment options for digestive diseases begin with vigorous research. The AGA Research Foundation supports medical investigators as they advance our understanding of gastrointestinal and liver conditions. Here are this year’s award recipients:
 

RESEARCH SCHOLAR AWARDS

AGA Research Scholar Award 

• Karen Jane Dunbar, PhD, Columbia University, New York, New York
• Aaron Hecht, MD, PhD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Sarah Maxwell, MD, University of California, San Francisco
• Chung Sang Tse, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, MD, PhD, Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachusetts

AGA-Bristol Myers Squibb Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

• Joseph R. Burclaff, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

SPECIALTY AWARDS

AGA-Caroline Craig Augustyn & Damian Augustyn Award in Digestive Cancer

• Swathi Eluri, MD, MSCR, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

AGA-R. Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer

• Jianwen Que, MD, PhD, Columbia University, New York, New York

AGA-Pfizer Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award

• Lianna Wood, MD, PhD, Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachusetts

AGA-Ironwood Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award

• ZeNan Li Chang, MD, PhD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

PILOT AWARDS

AGA Pilot Research Award

• Linda C. Cummings, MD, MS, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
• Pooja Mehta, MD, MSCS, University of Colorado Denver
• Guilherme Piovezani Ramos, MD, Boston Children’s Hospital
• Simon Schwoerer, PhD, University of Chicago, Illinois
• Yankai Wen, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

AGA-Pfizer Pilot Research Award in Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis

• Alice Cheng, PhD, Stanford University, California
• Petra Hirsova, PhD, PharmD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Sarah Maxwell, MD, University of California, San Francisco

AGA-Pfizer Pilot Research Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

• David Boone, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
• Sara Chloe Di Rienzi, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
• Jared Andrew Sninsky, MD, MSCR, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AWARDS

AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Surf for Success Program

• Eli Burstein, Yeshiva University, New York, New York
• Chloe Carlisle, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
• Adna Hassan, University of Minnesota Rochester
• Nicole Rodriguez Hilario, Barry University, Miami, Florida
• Maryam Jimoh, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio
• Viktoriya Kalinina, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

AGA-Dr. Harvey Young Education & Development Foundation’s Young Guts Scholar Program

• Rafaella Lavalle Lacerda de Almeida, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
• Lara Cheesman, John’s Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
• Cass Condray, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
• Daniel Juarez, Columbia University, New York, New York
• Jason Lin, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Riya Malhotra, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
• Brian Nguyen, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
• Mahmoud (Moudy) Salem, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

ABSTRACT AWARDS

AGA Fellow Abstract of the Year Award

• Andrea Tou, MD Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

AGA Fellow Abstract Awards

• Manik Aggarwal, MBBS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Kole Buckley, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Jane Ha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Brent Hiramoto, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Md Obaidul Islam, PhD, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
• Kanak Kennedy, MD, MPH, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Hanseul Kim, PhD, MS, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Chiraag Kulkarni, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California
• Su-Hyung Lee, PhD, DVM, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
• Caroline Muiler, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
• Sarah Najjar, PhD, New York University, New York, New York
• Ronaldo Panganiban, MD, PhD Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
• Perseus Patel, MD, Stanford University, California
• Hassan Sinan, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
• Patricia Snarski, PhD, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
• Fernando Vicentini, PhD, MS, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
• Remington Winter, MD, University of Manitoba – Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• Tiaosi Xing, PhD, MBBS, MS, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania

AGA Student Abstract of the Year Award

• Jazmyne Jackson, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

AGA Student Abstract Award

• Valentina Alvarez, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
• Yasaman Bahojb Habibyan, MS, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Tessa Herman, MD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota
• Jason Jin, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
• Frederikke Larsen, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
• Kara McNamara, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
• Julia Sessions, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
• Scott Silvey, MS, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
• Vijaya Sundaram, Marshall University School of Medicine, Huntington, West Virginia
• Kafayat Yusuf, MS, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas

AGA–Eric Esrailian Student Abstract Prize

• Brent Gawey, MD, MS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Fei Li, MBBS, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Emily Wong, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• Jordan Woodard, MD, Prisma Health – Upstate, Greenville, South Carolina

AGA–Radhika Srinivasan Student Abstract Prize

• Raz Abdulqadir, MS, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
• Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, MHS, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee
• Jared Morris, MD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg City, Manitoba, Canada
• Rachel Stubler, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

AGA Abstract Award for Health Disparities Research

• Saqr Alsakarneh, MD University of Missouri-Kansas City
• Marco Noriega, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
• Temitope Olasehinde, MD, University Hospitals/Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
• Gabrielle Waclawik, MD, MPH, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Award

• W. Keith Tan, MBChB, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
• Elsa van Liere, MD Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) is proud to announce that it has selected 79 recipients to receive research funding through the annual AGA Research Foundation Awards Program. The program serves as a catalyst for discovery and career growth among the most promising researchers in gastroenterology and hepatology.

“This year’s awardees are an exceptional group of investigators who are committed to furthering patient care through research,” said Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, chair, AGA Research Foundation. “The AGA Research Foundation is proud to fund these investigators and their ongoing efforts to advance GI research at a critical time in their careers. We believe the Foundation’s investment will ultimately enable new discoveries in gastroenterology and hepatology that will benefit patients.”

Treatment options for digestive diseases begin with vigorous research. The AGA Research Foundation supports medical investigators as they advance our understanding of gastrointestinal and liver conditions. Here are this year’s award recipients:
 

RESEARCH SCHOLAR AWARDS

AGA Research Scholar Award 

• Karen Jane Dunbar, PhD, Columbia University, New York, New York
• Aaron Hecht, MD, PhD, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Sarah Maxwell, MD, University of California, San Francisco
• Chung Sang Tse, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Jason (Yanjia) Zhang, MD, PhD, Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachusetts

AGA-Bristol Myers Squibb Research Scholar Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

• Joseph R. Burclaff, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

SPECIALTY AWARDS

AGA-Caroline Craig Augustyn & Damian Augustyn Award in Digestive Cancer

• Swathi Eluri, MD, MSCR, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

AGA-R. Robert & Sally Funderburg Research Award in Gastric Cancer

• Jianwen Que, MD, PhD, Columbia University, New York, New York

AGA-Pfizer Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award

• Lianna Wood, MD, PhD, Boston Children’s Hospital, Massachusetts

AGA-Ironwood Fellowship-to-Faculty Transition Award

• ZeNan Li Chang, MD, PhD, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri

PILOT AWARDS

AGA Pilot Research Award

• Linda C. Cummings, MD, MS, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
• Pooja Mehta, MD, MSCS, University of Colorado Denver
• Guilherme Piovezani Ramos, MD, Boston Children’s Hospital
• Simon Schwoerer, PhD, University of Chicago, Illinois
• Yankai Wen, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

AGA-Pfizer Pilot Research Award in Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis

• Alice Cheng, PhD, Stanford University, California
• Petra Hirsova, PhD, PharmD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Sarah Maxwell, MD, University of California, San Francisco

AGA-Pfizer Pilot Research Award in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

• David Boone, PhD, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana
• Sara Chloe Di Rienzi, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
• Jared Andrew Sninsky, MD, MSCR, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AWARDS

AGA-Aman Armaan Ahmed Family Surf for Success Program

• Eli Burstein, Yeshiva University, New York, New York
• Chloe Carlisle, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
• Adna Hassan, University of Minnesota Rochester
• Nicole Rodriguez Hilario, Barry University, Miami, Florida
• Maryam Jimoh, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio
• Viktoriya Kalinina, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

AGA-Dr. Harvey Young Education & Development Foundation’s Young Guts Scholar Program

• Rafaella Lavalle Lacerda de Almeida, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
• Lara Cheesman, John’s Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
• Cass Condray, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
• Daniel Juarez, Columbia University, New York, New York
• Jason Lin, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Riya Malhotra, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
• Brian Nguyen, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
• Mahmoud (Moudy) Salem, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York

ABSTRACT AWARDS

AGA Fellow Abstract of the Year Award

• Andrea Tou, MD Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

AGA Fellow Abstract Awards

• Manik Aggarwal, MBBS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Kole Buckley, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Jane Ha, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Brent Hiramoto, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Md Obaidul Islam, PhD, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida
• Kanak Kennedy, MD, MPH, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• Hanseul Kim, PhD, MS, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
• Chiraag Kulkarni, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California
• Su-Hyung Lee, PhD, DVM, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
• Caroline Muiler, PhD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
• Sarah Najjar, PhD, New York University, New York, New York
• Ronaldo Panganiban, MD, PhD Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
• Perseus Patel, MD, Stanford University, California
• Hassan Sinan, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
• Patricia Snarski, PhD, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana
• Fernando Vicentini, PhD, MS, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
• Remington Winter, MD, University of Manitoba – Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
• Tiaosi Xing, PhD, MBBS, MS, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania

AGA Student Abstract of the Year Award

• Jazmyne Jackson, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

AGA Student Abstract Award

• Valentina Alvarez, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
• Yasaman Bahojb Habibyan, MS, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Tessa Herman, MD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota
• Jason Jin, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
• Frederikke Larsen, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
• Kara McNamara, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
• Julia Sessions, MD, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
• Scott Silvey, MS, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
• Vijaya Sundaram, Marshall University School of Medicine, Huntington, West Virginia
• Kafayat Yusuf, MS, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas

AGA–Eric Esrailian Student Abstract Prize

• Brent Gawey, MD, MS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
• Fei Li, MBBS, MS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
• Emily Wong, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• Jordan Woodard, MD, Prisma Health – Upstate, Greenville, South Carolina

AGA–Radhika Srinivasan Student Abstract Prize

• Raz Abdulqadir, MS, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania
• Rebecca Ekeanyanwu, MHS, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee
• Jared Morris, MD, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg City, Manitoba, Canada
• Rachel Stubler, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina

AGA Abstract Award for Health Disparities Research

• Saqr Alsakarneh, MD University of Missouri-Kansas City
• Marco Noriega, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
• Temitope Olasehinde, MD, University Hospitals/Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
• Gabrielle Waclawik, MD, MPH, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

AGA-Moti L. & Kamla Rustgi International Travel Award

• W. Keith Tan, MBChB, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England
• Elsa van Liere, MD Amsterdam Universitair Medische Centra, Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index shows high discordance with liver stiffness measurement (LSM) via transient elastography, suggesting that many patients are misclassified, potentially impacting clinical decisions, according to investigators.

These findings call for a cautious interpretation of low-risk FIB-4 results among patients at greatest risk of misclassification, and/or use of alternative assessment strategies, reported Mazen Noureddin, MD, MHSc, of Houston Methodist Hospital, and coauthors.

swesabobogathobegeuecucheticrithucrufromocaphemaluclemulawromilokuswagucinobegitorilaspouaposididefrolowraprobeseswewrigivepr