GI and Hepatology News

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-aauz (Otulfi), a biosimilar that references Johnson & Johnson’s ustekinumab (Stelara).

This is the fourth ustekinumab biosimilar approved in the United States. Like the reference product, ustekinumab-aauz is indicated for:

• Patients 6 years or older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
• Patients 6 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

Ustekinumab-aauz, produced by a partnership between Fresenius Kabi and Formycon, has two formulations: subcutaneous injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/mL solution in a single-dose prefilled syringe) or intravenous infusion (130 mg/26 mL solution in a single-dose vial).

The biosimilar will launch in the United States “no later than February 22, 2025,” according to the press release, “in accordance with the patent settlement between Fresenius Kabi, Formycon, and Johnson & Johnson.”

Ustekinumab-aauz is Fresenius Kabi’s fourth biosimilar granted US approval, behind adalimumab-aacf (Idacio), tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), and pegfilgrastim-fpgk (Stimufend).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-aauz (Otulfi), a biosimilar that references Johnson & Johnson’s ustekinumab (Stelara).

This is the fourth ustekinumab biosimilar approved in the United States. Like the reference product, ustekinumab-aauz is indicated for:

• Patients 6 years or older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
• Patients 6 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

Ustekinumab-aauz, produced by a partnership between Fresenius Kabi and Formycon, has two formulations: subcutaneous injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/mL solution in a single-dose prefilled syringe) or intravenous infusion (130 mg/26 mL solution in a single-dose vial).

The biosimilar will launch in the United States “no later than February 22, 2025,” according to the press release, “in accordance with the patent settlement between Fresenius Kabi, Formycon, and Johnson & Johnson.”

Ustekinumab-aauz is Fresenius Kabi’s fourth biosimilar granted US approval, behind adalimumab-aacf (Idacio), tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), and pegfilgrastim-fpgk (Stimufend).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-aauz (Otulfi), a biosimilar that references Johnson & Johnson’s ustekinumab (Stelara).

This is the fourth ustekinumab biosimilar approved in the United States. Like the reference product, ustekinumab-aauz is indicated for:

• Patients 6 years or older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy
• Patients 6 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease
• Adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis

Ustekinumab-aauz, produced by a partnership between Fresenius Kabi and Formycon, has two formulations: subcutaneous injection (45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/mL solution in a single-dose prefilled syringe) or intravenous infusion (130 mg/26 mL solution in a single-dose vial).

The biosimilar will launch in the United States “no later than February 22, 2025,” according to the press release, “in accordance with the patent settlement between Fresenius Kabi, Formycon, and Johnson & Johnson.”

Ustekinumab-aauz is Fresenius Kabi’s fourth biosimilar granted US approval, behind adalimumab-aacf (Idacio), tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), and pegfilgrastim-fpgk (Stimufend).

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

The experimental monoclonal antibody tulisokibart safely induced clinical remission in a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

In one cohort of 135 patients, the primary endpoint of clinical remission occurred in 26% of those given the novel antibody to tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) vs 1% given placebo (95% CI, 14-37, P < .001). In a smaller cohort of 43 patients genetically pretested for likely response to the new biologic, remission after treatment was only slightly higher at 32% vs 11% (95% CI, 2-38, P = .02).

The incidence of adverse events was similar in both arms, and most events were mild.

Courtesy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The 12-week induction trial, conducted in 14 countries by the ARTEMIS-UC Study Group and led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and system chief in the Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that important clinical benefit may be achieved through TL1A blockade in patients with UC,” Dr. Sands said in an interview, adding that this is the first rigorous study of a drug class with an entirely new mechanism of action that may be beneficial in other immune-mediated and fibrotic diseases. 

“And it is also the first prospective randomized controlled trial in IBD to incorporate a precision-medicine approach using a predictive biomarker for response in a drug development program,” he added.

Dr. Sands stressed the urgent need for new therapies since, despite the approval of multiple new classes of agents, both small molecules and biologics, “there is still a plateau of efficacy in that less than 50% of patients achieve remission at a year.”

He added that UC may progress over time owing to fibrosis of the bowel, a condition not directly or safely addressed by any existing therapies. “Identifying novel targets such as TL1A may allow us to address a different subpopulation of patients who may not respond to the targets addressed by existing therapies,” he said.

In agreement is Jason K. Hou, MD, MS, AGAF, an associate professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and section chief of gastroenterology at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston, Texas. “Although it’s a very exciting time with more options in the last few years for treating UC, even inhibitors with new agents such as JAK inhibitors and interleukin 23 antagonists, many patients have no or only a partial response,” he said in an interview. “Targeting molecules, which has been studied for decades, may offer more than a shot in the dark.” 
 

Why Target TL1A?

Genome-wide studies have shown elevated TL1A, a member of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

“The interaction of TL1A and its ligand, death domain receptor 3, contributes to the immune-mediated inflammation and fibrosis seen in IBD through the downstream production of proinflammatory cytokines by multiple different immune cells, and the elaboration of collagen by fibroblasts,” Dr. Sands explained.

With the intention of targeting TL1A, his group randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe active UC who were glucocorticoid dependent or had not responded to conventional or advanced therapies, with disease extending a minimum of 15 cm from the anal verge. Across arms, the age of the mainly White, non-Hispanic participants ranged from about 37 to about 42, 35%-53% were female, and disease duration was approximately 6-8 years. 

The arms received either placebo or intravenous tulisokibart at 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of biomarker status for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.

Dr. Hou was surprised that response to tulisokibart vs placebo was not greater in test-identified probable responders. “The biomarker didn’t make a huge difference, just a numerical one,” he said. “It may be that more genes are involved than the test could identify, and response is more complicated. Or perhaps the placebo response was particularly high in this small group. We need a deeper dive into why.” 
 

Earlier Application?

“This was a phase 2 study, so it’s too soon to say if tulisokibart could be used as early therapy or in severe disease,” Sands said. “However, the excellent safety profile and efficacy suggest that these populations should be explored in later studies. 

Further work is needed to validate the test to predict higher likelihood of response, he added, and recruiting for a phase 3 study is now underway.

The study was supported by Prometheus Biosciences, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Sands disclosed multiple ties to private companies, including research support, consulting, data safety monitoring, travel, a gift, and a stock option. Several coauthors reported, variously, research support from and/or consulting for multiple private companies. Others reported employment, variously, with Prometheus and/or Merck, Spyre Therapeutics, and Mirador Therapeutics, or patent holding for IBD drugs. Dr. Hou had no relevant competing interests to disclose but will participate in the phase 3 trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The experimental monoclonal antibody tulisokibart safely induced clinical remission in a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

In one cohort of 135 patients, the primary endpoint of clinical remission occurred in 26% of those given the novel antibody to tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) vs 1% given placebo (95% CI, 14-37, P < .001). In a smaller cohort of 43 patients genetically pretested for likely response to the new biologic, remission after treatment was only slightly higher at 32% vs 11% (95% CI, 2-38, P = .02).

The incidence of adverse events was similar in both arms, and most events were mild.

Courtesy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The 12-week induction trial, conducted in 14 countries by the ARTEMIS-UC Study Group and led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and system chief in the Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that important clinical benefit may be achieved through TL1A blockade in patients with UC,” Dr. Sands said in an interview, adding that this is the first rigorous study of a drug class with an entirely new mechanism of action that may be beneficial in other immune-mediated and fibrotic diseases. 

“And it is also the first prospective randomized controlled trial in IBD to incorporate a precision-medicine approach using a predictive biomarker for response in a drug development program,” he added.

Dr. Sands stressed the urgent need for new therapies since, despite the approval of multiple new classes of agents, both small molecules and biologics, “there is still a plateau of efficacy in that less than 50% of patients achieve remission at a year.”

He added that UC may progress over time owing to fibrosis of the bowel, a condition not directly or safely addressed by any existing therapies. “Identifying novel targets such as TL1A may allow us to address a different subpopulation of patients who may not respond to the targets addressed by existing therapies,” he said.

In agreement is Jason K. Hou, MD, MS, AGAF, an associate professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and section chief of gastroenterology at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston, Texas. “Although it’s a very exciting time with more options in the last few years for treating UC, even inhibitors with new agents such as JAK inhibitors and interleukin 23 antagonists, many patients have no or only a partial response,” he said in an interview. “Targeting molecules, which has been studied for decades, may offer more than a shot in the dark.” 
 

Why Target TL1A?

Genome-wide studies have shown elevated TL1A, a member of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

“The interaction of TL1A and its ligand, death domain receptor 3, contributes to the immune-mediated inflammation and fibrosis seen in IBD through the downstream production of proinflammatory cytokines by multiple different immune cells, and the elaboration of collagen by fibroblasts,” Dr. Sands explained.

With the intention of targeting TL1A, his group randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe active UC who were glucocorticoid dependent or had not responded to conventional or advanced therapies, with disease extending a minimum of 15 cm from the anal verge. Across arms, the age of the mainly White, non-Hispanic participants ranged from about 37 to about 42, 35%-53% were female, and disease duration was approximately 6-8 years. 

The arms received either placebo or intravenous tulisokibart at 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of biomarker status for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.

Dr. Hou was surprised that response to tulisokibart vs placebo was not greater in test-identified probable responders. “The biomarker didn’t make a huge difference, just a numerical one,” he said. “It may be that more genes are involved than the test could identify, and response is more complicated. Or perhaps the placebo response was particularly high in this small group. We need a deeper dive into why.” 
 

Earlier Application?

“This was a phase 2 study, so it’s too soon to say if tulisokibart could be used as early therapy or in severe disease,” Sands said. “However, the excellent safety profile and efficacy suggest that these populations should be explored in later studies. 

Further work is needed to validate the test to predict higher likelihood of response, he added, and recruiting for a phase 3 study is now underway.

The study was supported by Prometheus Biosciences, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Sands disclosed multiple ties to private companies, including research support, consulting, data safety monitoring, travel, a gift, and a stock option. Several coauthors reported, variously, research support from and/or consulting for multiple private companies. Others reported employment, variously, with Prometheus and/or Merck, Spyre Therapeutics, and Mirador Therapeutics, or patent holding for IBD drugs. Dr. Hou had no relevant competing interests to disclose but will participate in the phase 3 trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The experimental monoclonal antibody tulisokibart safely induced clinical remission in a phase 2 randomized trial of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC).

In one cohort of 135 patients, the primary endpoint of clinical remission occurred in 26% of those given the novel antibody to tumor necrosis factor–like cytokine 1A (TL1A) vs 1% given placebo (95% CI, 14-37, P < .001). In a smaller cohort of 43 patients genetically pretested for likely response to the new biologic, remission after treatment was only slightly higher at 32% vs 11% (95% CI, 2-38, P = .02).

The incidence of adverse events was similar in both arms, and most events were mild.

Courtesy Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

The 12-week induction trial, conducted in 14 countries by the ARTEMIS-UC Study Group and led by Bruce E. Sands, MD, MS, AGAF, a professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and system chief in the Division of Gastroenterology at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, was published in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“Our results suggest that important clinical benefit may be achieved through TL1A blockade in patients with UC,” Dr. Sands said in an interview, adding that this is the first rigorous study of a drug class with an entirely new mechanism of action that may be beneficial in other immune-mediated and fibrotic diseases. 

“And it is also the first prospective randomized controlled trial in IBD to incorporate a precision-medicine approach using a predictive biomarker for response in a drug development program,” he added.

Dr. Sands stressed the urgent need for new therapies since, despite the approval of multiple new classes of agents, both small molecules and biologics, “there is still a plateau of efficacy in that less than 50% of patients achieve remission at a year.”

He added that UC may progress over time owing to fibrosis of the bowel, a condition not directly or safely addressed by any existing therapies. “Identifying novel targets such as TL1A may allow us to address a different subpopulation of patients who may not respond to the targets addressed by existing therapies,” he said.

In agreement is Jason K. Hou, MD, MS, AGAF, an associate professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and section chief of gastroenterology at Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, both in Houston, Texas. “Although it’s a very exciting time with more options in the last few years for treating UC, even inhibitors with new agents such as JAK inhibitors and interleukin 23 antagonists, many patients have no or only a partial response,” he said in an interview. “Targeting molecules, which has been studied for decades, may offer more than a shot in the dark.” 
 

Why Target TL1A?

Genome-wide studies have shown elevated TL1A, a member of the tumor necrosis factor superfamily, in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

“The interaction of TL1A and its ligand, death domain receptor 3, contributes to the immune-mediated inflammation and fibrosis seen in IBD through the downstream production of proinflammatory cytokines by multiple different immune cells, and the elaboration of collagen by fibroblasts,” Dr. Sands explained.

With the intention of targeting TL1A, his group randomly assigned patients with moderate to severe active UC who were glucocorticoid dependent or had not responded to conventional or advanced therapies, with disease extending a minimum of 15 cm from the anal verge. Across arms, the age of the mainly White, non-Hispanic participants ranged from about 37 to about 42, 35%-53% were female, and disease duration was approximately 6-8 years. 

The arms received either placebo or intravenous tulisokibart at 1000 mg on day 1 and 500 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10. Cohort 1 included patients regardless of biomarker status for likelihood of response. Cohort 2 included only patients with a positive test for likelihood of response.

Dr. Hou was surprised that response to tulisokibart vs placebo was not greater in test-identified probable responders. “The biomarker didn’t make a huge difference, just a numerical one,” he said. “It may be that more genes are involved than the test could identify, and response is more complicated. Or perhaps the placebo response was particularly high in this small group. We need a deeper dive into why.” 
 

Earlier Application?

“This was a phase 2 study, so it’s too soon to say if tulisokibart could be used as early therapy or in severe disease,” Sands said. “However, the excellent safety profile and efficacy suggest that these populations should be explored in later studies. 

Further work is needed to validate the test to predict higher likelihood of response, he added, and recruiting for a phase 3 study is now underway.

The study was supported by Prometheus Biosciences, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Sands disclosed multiple ties to private companies, including research support, consulting, data safety monitoring, travel, a gift, and a stock option. Several coauthors reported, variously, research support from and/or consulting for multiple private companies. Others reported employment, variously, with Prometheus and/or Merck, Spyre Therapeutics, and Mirador Therapeutics, or patent holding for IBD drugs. Dr. Hou had no relevant competing interests to disclose but will participate in the phase 3 trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with Crohn’s disease, a multicenter prospective cohort study found that anti-TNF therapy failed to achieve remission at 3 years in about two-thirds of cases, and that high drug concentrations early in treatment are linked to greater probability of sustained remission.

“The relationship between drug concentrations, immunogenicity and clinical response is likely to be multidirectional; as an observational study, we cannot definitively show the low drug levels are causative. However, our data are consistent with those from elsewhere and confirm the importance of achieving good drug levels to maximize the chances of success with anti-TNF therapy,” said Nicholas Kennedy, MBBS, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom, and coauthor of the study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .

“We also showed that adequate dosing of thiopurines was needed to prevent immunogenicity, along the lines typically used to treat Crohn’s disease rather than the lower doses sometimes proposed,” he added.

The findings come from the Personalized Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease (PANTS) study conducted in the UK, which included 955 patients treated with infliximab and 655 treated with adalimumab between March 2014 and September 2017. The participants were 6 years or older, the median age was 32.5 years, and 51% were female. 

The latest findings come from a 2-year extension of the original 1-year PANTS study, published in 2019, which found that low drug concentrations predicted anti-TNF treatment failure — a result likely attributable in part to immunogenicity, since low-drug concentrations predicted the presence of anti-drug antibodies, and anti-drug antibodies in turn predicted low drug concentrations, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of the Digestive Diseases Institute and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“This is one of the more important studies looking at the longitudinal care of patients with Crohn’s disease on infliximab and adalimumab,” said Dr. Regueiro, who was not involved with the study.

The extension study found that anti-drug antibodies and undetectable drug levels were associated with both treatment without an accompanying immunomodulator and carriage of the HLA-DQA1*05 genetic risk factor, though the latter was true only for treatment with infliximab.

Cleveland Clinic

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with Crohn’s disease, a multicenter prospective cohort study found that anti-TNF therapy failed to achieve remission at 3 years in about two-thirds of cases, and that high drug concentrations early in treatment are linked to greater probability of sustained remission.

“The relationship between drug concentrations, immunogenicity and clinical response is likely to be multidirectional; as an observational study, we cannot definitively show the low drug levels are causative. However, our data are consistent with those from elsewhere and confirm the importance of achieving good drug levels to maximize the chances of success with anti-TNF therapy,” said Nicholas Kennedy, MBBS, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom, and coauthor of the study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .

“We also showed that adequate dosing of thiopurines was needed to prevent immunogenicity, along the lines typically used to treat Crohn’s disease rather than the lower doses sometimes proposed,” he added.

The findings come from the Personalized Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease (PANTS) study conducted in the UK, which included 955 patients treated with infliximab and 655 treated with adalimumab between March 2014 and September 2017. The participants were 6 years or older, the median age was 32.5 years, and 51% were female. 

The latest findings come from a 2-year extension of the original 1-year PANTS study, published in 2019, which found that low drug concentrations predicted anti-TNF treatment failure — a result likely attributable in part to immunogenicity, since low-drug concentrations predicted the presence of anti-drug antibodies, and anti-drug antibodies in turn predicted low drug concentrations, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of the Digestive Diseases Institute and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“This is one of the more important studies looking at the longitudinal care of patients with Crohn’s disease on infliximab and adalimumab,” said Dr. Regueiro, who was not involved with the study.

The extension study found that anti-drug antibodies and undetectable drug levels were associated with both treatment without an accompanying immunomodulator and carriage of the HLA-DQA1*05 genetic risk factor, though the latter was true only for treatment with infliximab.

Cleveland Clinic

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients with Crohn’s disease, a multicenter prospective cohort study found that anti-TNF therapy failed to achieve remission at 3 years in about two-thirds of cases, and that high drug concentrations early in treatment are linked to greater probability of sustained remission.

“The relationship between drug concentrations, immunogenicity and clinical response is likely to be multidirectional; as an observational study, we cannot definitively show the low drug levels are causative. However, our data are consistent with those from elsewhere and confirm the importance of achieving good drug levels to maximize the chances of success with anti-TNF therapy,” said Nicholas Kennedy, MBBS, PhD, a consultant gastroenterologist at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, United Kingdom, and coauthor of the study published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology .

“We also showed that adequate dosing of thiopurines was needed to prevent immunogenicity, along the lines typically used to treat Crohn’s disease rather than the lower doses sometimes proposed,” he added.

The findings come from the Personalized Anti-TNF Therapy in Crohn’s Disease (PANTS) study conducted in the UK, which included 955 patients treated with infliximab and 655 treated with adalimumab between March 2014 and September 2017. The participants were 6 years or older, the median age was 32.5 years, and 51% were female. 

The latest findings come from a 2-year extension of the original 1-year PANTS study, published in 2019, which found that low drug concentrations predicted anti-TNF treatment failure — a result likely attributable in part to immunogenicity, since low-drug concentrations predicted the presence of anti-drug antibodies, and anti-drug antibodies in turn predicted low drug concentrations, according to Miguel Regueiro, MD, AGAF, chief of the Digestive Diseases Institute and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio.

“This is one of the more important studies looking at the longitudinal care of patients with Crohn’s disease on infliximab and adalimumab,” said Dr. Regueiro, who was not involved with the study.

The extension study found that anti-drug antibodies and undetectable drug levels were associated with both treatment without an accompanying immunomodulator and carriage of the HLA-DQA1*05 genetic risk factor, though the latter was true only for treatment with infliximab.

Cleveland Clinic

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was first introduced in the early 1980s by surgeons Michael Gauderer and Jeffrey Ponsky as a less-invasive alternative to surgical gastrostomy via open laparotomy. The concept was born after the pair observed that the light from an endoscope in an infant undergoing endoscopy caused the abdominal wall to glow in the darkened operating room.

In fact, PEG was among the first procedures that defined minimally invasive surgery, a concept that has now revolutionized the surgical field. Since that time, PEG has evolved as a preferred method for patients needing long-term nutritional support for various indications. By 2001, approximately 216,000 PEGs were placed annually in the United States. While the volume of PEG procedures has declined in recent years at some institutions as practice patterns have shifted toward interventional radiology–placed gastrostomy tubes, evaluation of patients for PEG insertion, removal, or management of PEG complications remains a core area of gastroenterology practice.

University of Michigan

Among the most important roles of the gastroenterologist in considering potential PEG candidates is to determine whether an appropriate indication exists, a decision that requires a detailed understanding of a patient’s overall clinical condition, goals of care, values, and preferences. This month’s Ethics Corner column provides important expert insights on navigating the complex ethical and clinical issues relating to PEG placement, a common GI consultation that deserves thoughtful consideration and demands effective communication among members of the multidisciplinary team and with patients.

Also in our October issue, we highlight a recently published large multicohort study from Gastroenterology elucidating clinical, serologic, and genetic factors associated with extraintestinal manifestations in IBD. We also review key updates to colonoscopy quality indicators, including modifications to existing indicators such as ADR and the addition of two new “priority indicators” — rate of inadequate bowel prep and sessile serrated lesion detection rate.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, Dr. Stephanie Pointer of Digestive & Liver Health Specialists in Nashville, Tennessee, shares the many ways in which she has given back to her community through music and mentoring while leading a thriving GI practice. We hope you enjoy this, and all the coverage included in our October issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was first introduced in the early 1980s by surgeons Michael Gauderer and Jeffrey Ponsky as a less-invasive alternative to surgical gastrostomy via open laparotomy. The concept was born after the pair observed that the light from an endoscope in an infant undergoing endoscopy caused the abdominal wall to glow in the darkened operating room.

In fact, PEG was among the first procedures that defined minimally invasive surgery, a concept that has now revolutionized the surgical field. Since that time, PEG has evolved as a preferred method for patients needing long-term nutritional support for various indications. By 2001, approximately 216,000 PEGs were placed annually in the United States. While the volume of PEG procedures has declined in recent years at some institutions as practice patterns have shifted toward interventional radiology–placed gastrostomy tubes, evaluation of patients for PEG insertion, removal, or management of PEG complications remains a core area of gastroenterology practice.

University of Michigan

Among the most important roles of the gastroenterologist in considering potential PEG candidates is to determine whether an appropriate indication exists, a decision that requires a detailed understanding of a patient’s overall clinical condition, goals of care, values, and preferences. This month’s Ethics Corner column provides important expert insights on navigating the complex ethical and clinical issues relating to PEG placement, a common GI consultation that deserves thoughtful consideration and demands effective communication among members of the multidisciplinary team and with patients.

Also in our October issue, we highlight a recently published large multicohort study from Gastroenterology elucidating clinical, serologic, and genetic factors associated with extraintestinal manifestations in IBD. We also review key updates to colonoscopy quality indicators, including modifications to existing indicators such as ADR and the addition of two new “priority indicators” — rate of inadequate bowel prep and sessile serrated lesion detection rate.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, Dr. Stephanie Pointer of Digestive & Liver Health Specialists in Nashville, Tennessee, shares the many ways in which she has given back to her community through music and mentoring while leading a thriving GI practice. We hope you enjoy this, and all the coverage included in our October issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was first introduced in the early 1980s by surgeons Michael Gauderer and Jeffrey Ponsky as a less-invasive alternative to surgical gastrostomy via open laparotomy. The concept was born after the pair observed that the light from an endoscope in an infant undergoing endoscopy caused the abdominal wall to glow in the darkened operating room.

In fact, PEG was among the first procedures that defined minimally invasive surgery, a concept that has now revolutionized the surgical field. Since that time, PEG has evolved as a preferred method for patients needing long-term nutritional support for various indications. By 2001, approximately 216,000 PEGs were placed annually in the United States. While the volume of PEG procedures has declined in recent years at some institutions as practice patterns have shifted toward interventional radiology–placed gastrostomy tubes, evaluation of patients for PEG insertion, removal, or management of PEG complications remains a core area of gastroenterology practice.

University of Michigan

Among the most important roles of the gastroenterologist in considering potential PEG candidates is to determine whether an appropriate indication exists, a decision that requires a detailed understanding of a patient’s overall clinical condition, goals of care, values, and preferences. This month’s Ethics Corner column provides important expert insights on navigating the complex ethical and clinical issues relating to PEG placement, a common GI consultation that deserves thoughtful consideration and demands effective communication among members of the multidisciplinary team and with patients.

Also in our October issue, we highlight a recently published large multicohort study from Gastroenterology elucidating clinical, serologic, and genetic factors associated with extraintestinal manifestations in IBD. We also review key updates to colonoscopy quality indicators, including modifications to existing indicators such as ADR and the addition of two new “priority indicators” — rate of inadequate bowel prep and sessile serrated lesion detection rate.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, Dr. Stephanie Pointer of Digestive & Liver Health Specialists in Nashville, Tennessee, shares the many ways in which she has given back to her community through music and mentoring while leading a thriving GI practice. We hope you enjoy this, and all the coverage included in our October issue.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Whether it’s playing her piano, working on a sewing project or performing a colonoscopy, Stephanie D. Pointer, MD, enjoys working with her hands. She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.

One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.

Dr. Pointer

Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”

In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.

During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures. 
 

Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?

There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.

But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty. 
 

Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?

I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.

That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly. 
 

Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?

Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.

The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.

It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite junk food?

Chocolate chip cookies

Cat or dog person?

Cat

Favorite vacation?

Hawaii

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

I don’t drink coffee

Favorite ice cream?

Butter pecan

Favorite sport?

I don’t watch sports

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Whether it’s playing her piano, working on a sewing project or performing a colonoscopy, Stephanie D. Pointer, MD, enjoys working with her hands. She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.

One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.

Dr. Pointer

Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”

In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.

During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures. 
 

Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?

There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.

But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty. 
 

Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?

I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.

That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly. 
 

Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?

Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.

The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.

It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite junk food?

Chocolate chip cookies

Cat or dog person?

Cat

Favorite vacation?

Hawaii

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

I don’t drink coffee

Favorite ice cream?

Butter pecan

Favorite sport?

I don’t watch sports

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Whether it’s playing her piano, working on a sewing project or performing a colonoscopy, Stephanie D. Pointer, MD, enjoys working with her hands. She also relishes opportunities to think, to analyze, and solve problems for her patients.

One of her chief interests is inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It’s reassuring to focus on a field of work “where I know exactly what’s causing the issue, and I can select a therapeutic approach (medication and lifestyle changes) that help a patient achieve remission,” said Dr. Pointer, co-owner and managing partner of Digestive and Liver Health Specialists in Hendersonville, Tenn. She’s also the medical director and a principal investigator of Quality Medical Research in Nashville, and currently serves as chair of the AGA Trainee and Early Career Committee.

Dr. Pointer

Starting her own practice has been just as challenging and rewarding as going through medical school. Medical training does not prepare you for starting your own practice, Dr. Pointer said, so she and her business partner have had to learn as they go. “But I think we’ve done very well. We’ve taken the ups and downs in stride.”

In an interview, Dr. Pointer spoke more about her work in IBD and the ways in which she’s given back to the community through music and mentoring.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI?

I knew from a very young age that I was going to be a physician. I had always been interested in science. When I got into medical school and became exposed to the different areas, I really liked the cognitive skills where you had to think through a problem or an issue. But I also liked the procedural things as well.

During my internal medicine residency training, I felt that I had a knack for it. As I was looking at different options, I decided on gastroenterology because it combined both cognitive thinking through issues, but also taking it to the next step and intervening through procedures. 
 

Q: During fellowship, your focus was inflammatory bowel disease. What drew your interest to this condition?

There are a lot of different areas within gastroenterology that one can subspecialize in, as we see the full gamut of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. But treating some conditions, like functional disorders, means taking more of a ‘trial and error’ approach, and you may not always get the patient a hundred percent better. That’s not to say that we can’t improve a patient’s quality of life, but it’s not always a guarantee.

But inflammatory bowel disease is a little bit different. Because I can point to an exact spot in the intestines that’s causing the problem, it’s very fulfilling for me as a physician to take a patient who is having 10-12 bloody bowel movements a day, to normal form stools and no abdominal pain. They’re able to gain weight and go on about their lives and about their day. So that was why I picked inflammatory bowel disease as my subspecialty. 
 

Q: Tell me about the gastroenterology elective you developed for family medicine residents and undergraduate students. What’s the status of the program now?

I’ve always been interested in teaching and giving back to the next generations. I feel like I had great mentor opportunities and people who helped me along the way. In my previous hospital position, I was able to work with the family medicine department and create an elective through which residents and even undergraduate students could come and shadow and work with me in the clinic and see me performing procedures.

That elective ended once I left that position, at least as far as I’m aware. But in the private practice that I co-own now, we have numerous shadowing opportunities. I was able to give a lecture at Middle Tennessee State University for some students. And through that lecture, many students have reached out to me to shadow. I have allowed them to come shadow and do clinic work as a medical assistant and watch me perform procedures. I have multiple students working with me weekly. 
 

Q: Years ago, you founded the non-profit Enchanted Fingers Piano Lessons, which gave free piano lessons to underserved youth. What was that experience like?

Piano was one of my first loves. In some parallel universe, there’s a Dr. Pointer who is a classical, concert pianist. I started taking piano lessons when I was in early middle school, and I took to it very quickly. I was able to excel. I just loved it. I enjoyed practicing and I still play.

The impetus for starting Enchanted Fingers Piano lessons was because I wanted to give back again to the community. I came from an underserved community. Oftentimes children and young adults in those communities don’t get exposed to extracurricular activities and they don’t even know what they could potentially have a passion for. And I definitely had a passion for piano. I partnered with a church organization and they allowed me to use their church to host these piano lessons, and it was a phenomenal and rewarding experience. I would definitely like to start it up again one day in the future. It was an amazing experience.

It’s actually how I met my husband. He was one of the young adult students who signed up to take lessons. We both still enjoy playing the piano together.
 

Q: When you’re not being a GI, how do you spend your free weekend afternoons?

I’m a creative at heart. I really enjoy sewing and I’m working on a few sewing projects. I just got a serger. It is a machine that helps you finish a seam. It can also be used to sew entire garments. That has been fun, learning how to thread that machine. When I’m not doing that or just relaxing with my family, I do enjoy curling up with a good book. Stephen King is one of my favorite authors.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Talking

Favorite junk food?

Chocolate chip cookies

Cat or dog person?

Cat

Favorite vacation?

Hawaii

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

I don’t drink coffee

Favorite ice cream?

Butter pecan

Favorite sport?

I don’t watch sports

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Digital pathology assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic liver disease in the next few years and to reshape clinical trials, clearing the way for new therapies.

Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.

“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.

“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
 

Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management

The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.

But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.

Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”

In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”

Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view. 

Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”

The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.

“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said. 

Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.

The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
 

More Effective Clinical Trials

The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.

“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted. 

However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.

That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said. 

The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.

Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.

To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said. 

“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.

The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.

“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”

Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.

This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.

“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.

This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
 

What’s Ahead

These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said. 

“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.

Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.

Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.

“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”

Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Digital pathology assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic liver disease in the next few years and to reshape clinical trials, clearing the way for new therapies.

Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.

“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.

“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
 

Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management

The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.

But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.

Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”

In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”

Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view. 

Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”

The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.

“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said. 

Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.

The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
 

More Effective Clinical Trials

The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.

“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted. 

However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.

That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said. 

The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.

Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.

To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said. 

“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.

The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.

“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”

Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.

This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.

“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.

This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
 

What’s Ahead

These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said. 

“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.

Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.

Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.

“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”

Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Digital pathology assisted by artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform the diagnosis and treatment of fibrotic liver disease in the next few years and to reshape clinical trials, clearing the way for new therapies.

Although the technology is not yet approved for routine clinical use, it’s constantly improving and aims to address the limitations inherent in today’s pathology processes.

“You do a biopsy, but instead of having a pathologist read it with their very rough scores of stage 1, 2, or 3, you read it by an AI-driven machine that can quantify it with a score of 1.5 or 1.75 instead of 1 or 2,” Vlad Ratziu, MD, PhD, professor of hepatology at the Sorbonne Université and Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière Medical School in Paris, France, and coeditor of The Journal of Hepatology, said in an interview.

“The technology is automated, more sensitive to change, and more highly quantitative. It has implications for liver disease diagnoses, clinical trials, and treatments,” added Dr. Ratziu, who has written about the promise and challenges inherent in developing treatments for metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).

To explore the potential impact of AI-powered technologies for the clinic, this news organization spoke with representatives from three companies identified by Dr. Ratziu as leaders in the field: HistoIndex, PathAI, and PharmaNest. Each company uses proprietary technology augmented by AI, and their tools have been used in published trials.
 

Moving Toward Better Diagnoses and Disease Management

The traditional approach for staging liver fibrosis relies on trained pathologists manually evaluating stained tissue samples obtained from biopsies of the liver.

But this method, though still considered the gold standard, doesn’t always provide the granularity needed for an accurate diagnosis or a reliable assessment in clinical trials, said Dean Tai, PhD, HistoIndex’s cofounder and chief scientific officer.

Although noninvasive tests (NITs), alone or with traditional histologic examination, are increasingly used during clinical management because they are less invasive and more repeatable for disease monitoring, they are limited in their precision and ability to provide comprehensive information, Dr. Tai said. That’s because “no single NIT or single-dimensional measurement of a biomarker offers a full assessment of disease activity, fibrogenic drive, and fibrosis load.”

In contrast, AI provides “a highly reproducible and objective assessment of liver fibrosis severity,” he said. “It eliminates the variability associated with staining methods, while revealing changes in the nano-architecture and morphology of collagen fibers not discernible by the human eye or current NITs, especially in the early stages of fibrosis or in cases of simultaneous progression and regression.”

Mathieu Petitjean, PhD, founder and CEO of PharmaNest, has a similar view. 

Although degree of liver fibrosis is associated with long-term outcomes of patients with MASLD, “poor detection thresholds due to their categorical nature mean that small and relevant changes are not reflected by changes in staging,” he said. “The reliable detection [with AI] of subtle changes in the phenotypes of fibrosis will significantly enrich the understanding of progression and regression of fibrosis severity.”

The ability of AI-based tools to see patterns the human eye cannot also means they could “help in predicting which patient may respond to a drug, in order to get the right treatments to the right patients as soon as possible,” said Katy Wack, PhD, vice president of clinical development at PathAI.

“Additionally, AI-based algorithms have been developed to provide more quantitative continuous scores to better capture change and discover new tissue-based biomarkers, which may be prognostic or predictive of clinical benefit,” she said. 

Such tools are currently undergoing testing and validation for use in trials and diagnostically.

The standardization and reproducibility offered by AI-driven technology could facilitate more consistent diagnoses across different healthcare settings, Dr. Tai suggested. “As the integration of the technology with other blood-, imaging-, and omics-based techniques evolves, it may enable earlier detection of liver diseases, more accurate monitoring of disease progression, and better evaluation of treatment responses, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.”
 

More Effective Clinical Trials

The limitations of conventional pathology may be responsible, at least in part, for the repeated failure of novel compounds to move from phase 2 to phase 3 clinical trials, and from clinical trials to approval, the sources agreed.

“In clinical trials, patients are subject to enrollment criteria using liver biopsies, which are scored with a composite scoring system involving four different histologic components to grade and stage the disease,” Dr. Wack noted. 

However, there is wide variability between pathologists on biopsy scoring, and an individual pathologist presented with the same sample may give it a different score after some time has passed, she said.

That means “we are using a nonstandardized and inconsistent scoring system to determine whether a patient can be enrolled or not into a trial,” Dr. Wack said. 

The change in the composite score over a follow-up period, usually 1-2 years, determines whether a patient has responded to the candidate drug and, ultimately, whether that drug could be considered for approval, Dr. Wack said.

Because scores at the baseline and follow-up timepoints are not precise and inconsistent across pathologist readers, and even the same reader over time, there are often many “false-positive” and “false-negative” responses that can result in potential therapeutics either failing or succeeding in clinical trials, she said.

To address this variability in biopsy scoring as it relates to clinical trials, regulatory bodies have recommended a consensus approach, in which multiple pathologists read the same biopsy independently and a median score is used, or pathologists convene to come to an agreement, Dr. Wack said. 

“This is a very costly and burdensome approach and is still subject to interconsensus panel variation,” she said.

The introduction of digital pathology using validated digital viewers, where pathologists can view a glass slide digitally and pan and zoom over the image as they can with a microscope, means that many pathologists can read the same slide in parallel, she explained.

“If they need to discuss, they can do so efficiently over a phone call, each using their own computer screen and shared annotation tools to facilitate their discussion.”

Although this consensus approach can improve consistency, it still leads to variability in scoring across different groups of pathologists, Dr. Wack said.

This is where AI-assisted pathology comes into play.

“With this approach, a pathologist still views the image digitally, but an algorithm has predicted and highlighted key features and recommended quantitative scores,” she said.

This approach has been shown to increase precision for pathologists, thereby increasing reproducibility and standardizing scoring across timepoints and clinical trials.
 

What’s Ahead

These AI tools could address pathology’s lack of scalability, the result of a limited number of trained pathologists capable of doing liver biopsy assessments, Dr. Tai said. 

“Digital pathology workflows enable the transformation of conventional histologic glass slides into large digital images using scanners, allowing significant productivity gains in terms of workflow and collaboration,” he said.

Although AI-assisted pathology tools are still being validated, their promise for improving diagnoses and uncovering new treatments is clear, the interviewees agreed.

Extending its use to stage fibrosis in other liver diseases, such as primary biliary cholangitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, and alcoholic liver disease, is also in progress on an experimental basis but will take time to validate.

“The landscape will evolve quickly in the coming 3-4 years,” Dr. Petitjean predicted. “To start, their intended use will likely be limited to a decision-support tool to enhance the performance of pathologists and perhaps stratify or triage cases sent for routine vs expert review.”

Dr. Petitjean even suggested that the increasing role of NITs and the amount of data being generated prospectively and retrospectively around liver biomarkers could mean that liver biopsies might not be needed one day.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a review of 32 mixed-type human studies, multinational researchers found a growing association between various classes of environmental pollutants and the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

The culprit environmental substances include heavy and transition metals, air pollutants, pesticides, and industrial contaminants. The latter encompass synthetic chemicals such as perfluoroalkyls and polyfluoroalkyls (PFAs), which are present in many common household products.

In contrast, zinc exposure may have a protective, anti-inflammatory effect, according to a research group led by Maria Manuela Estevinho, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology of the Unidade Local de Saúde Gaia e Espinho in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.

Published in Gut , the review also found limited data suggesting adverse IBD outcomes such as hospitalizations are more prevalent with increased exposure to air contaminants in particular.

“These data carry relevance toward counseling patients and family members,” coauthor Manasi Agrawal, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, and a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, said in an interview. “At the individual level, we can try to decrease our exposure to chemicals; for example, to minimize use of pesticides and products containing in our homes. However, at the broader community level, health policy changes are needed to help with mitigation strategies and curb production.”

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

• Heavy and transition metals such as copper, lead, and cadmium were associated with gut dysbiosis, overgrowth of undesirable species of microorganisms, and loss of tight junction proteins leading to leaky gut. In all studies, individuals with IBD showed higher concentrations of such metals than healthy control individuals. While the specific profile of heavy metals varied across studies, lead, copper, and iron, were linked to IBD risk in more than one study.
• The particulate matter present in air pollution — including agricultural and wood dust as well as volcanic ash and hydrocarbon dioxin — was linked to dysbiosis and tight junction protein loss. Air pollution has also been linked to increased incidence of irritable bowel syndrome.
• Industrial and organic pollutants such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, triclocarban, and polychlorinated biphenyls were also associated with gut permeability and/or reduced microbial diversity.
• Pesticides such as PFAs, organochloride and organophosphate compounds, and pyrethroids were associated with loss of tight junction proteins.
• Zinc was linked to an increase in tight junction proteins.

Commenting on the review but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, called it a very important study that expands our understanding of the role of environment in IBD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a review of 32 mixed-type human studies, multinational researchers found a growing association between various classes of environmental pollutants and the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

The culprit environmental substances include heavy and transition metals, air pollutants, pesticides, and industrial contaminants. The latter encompass synthetic chemicals such as perfluoroalkyls and polyfluoroalkyls (PFAs), which are present in many common household products.

In contrast, zinc exposure may have a protective, anti-inflammatory effect, according to a research group led by Maria Manuela Estevinho, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology of the Unidade Local de Saúde Gaia e Espinho in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.

Published in Gut , the review also found limited data suggesting adverse IBD outcomes such as hospitalizations are more prevalent with increased exposure to air contaminants in particular.

“These data carry relevance toward counseling patients and family members,” coauthor Manasi Agrawal, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, and a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, said in an interview. “At the individual level, we can try to decrease our exposure to chemicals; for example, to minimize use of pesticides and products containing in our homes. However, at the broader community level, health policy changes are needed to help with mitigation strategies and curb production.”

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

• Heavy and transition metals such as copper, lead, and cadmium were associated with gut dysbiosis, overgrowth of undesirable species of microorganisms, and loss of tight junction proteins leading to leaky gut. In all studies, individuals with IBD showed higher concentrations of such metals than healthy control individuals. While the specific profile of heavy metals varied across studies, lead, copper, and iron, were linked to IBD risk in more than one study.
• The particulate matter present in air pollution — including agricultural and wood dust as well as volcanic ash and hydrocarbon dioxin — was linked to dysbiosis and tight junction protein loss. Air pollution has also been linked to increased incidence of irritable bowel syndrome.
• Industrial and organic pollutants such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, triclocarban, and polychlorinated biphenyls were also associated with gut permeability and/or reduced microbial diversity.
• Pesticides such as PFAs, organochloride and organophosphate compounds, and pyrethroids were associated with loss of tight junction proteins.
• Zinc was linked to an increase in tight junction proteins.

Commenting on the review but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, called it a very important study that expands our understanding of the role of environment in IBD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a review of 32 mixed-type human studies, multinational researchers found a growing association between various classes of environmental pollutants and the risk for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

The culprit environmental substances include heavy and transition metals, air pollutants, pesticides, and industrial contaminants. The latter encompass synthetic chemicals such as perfluoroalkyls and polyfluoroalkyls (PFAs), which are present in many common household products.

In contrast, zinc exposure may have a protective, anti-inflammatory effect, according to a research group led by Maria Manuela Estevinho, MD, of the Department of Gastroenterology of the Unidade Local de Saúde Gaia e Espinho in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.

Published in Gut , the review also found limited data suggesting adverse IBD outcomes such as hospitalizations are more prevalent with increased exposure to air contaminants in particular.

“These data carry relevance toward counseling patients and family members,” coauthor Manasi Agrawal, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, and a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, said in an interview. “At the individual level, we can try to decrease our exposure to chemicals; for example, to minimize use of pesticides and products containing in our homes. However, at the broader community level, health policy changes are needed to help with mitigation strategies and curb production.”

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

• Heavy and transition metals such as copper, lead, and cadmium were associated with gut dysbiosis, overgrowth of undesirable species of microorganisms, and loss of tight junction proteins leading to leaky gut. In all studies, individuals with IBD showed higher concentrations of such metals than healthy control individuals. While the specific profile of heavy metals varied across studies, lead, copper, and iron, were linked to IBD risk in more than one study.
• The particulate matter present in air pollution — including agricultural and wood dust as well as volcanic ash and hydrocarbon dioxin — was linked to dysbiosis and tight junction protein loss. Air pollution has also been linked to increased incidence of irritable bowel syndrome.
• Industrial and organic pollutants such as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, triclocarban, and polychlorinated biphenyls were also associated with gut permeability and/or reduced microbial diversity.
• Pesticides such as PFAs, organochloride and organophosphate compounds, and pyrethroids were associated with loss of tight junction proteins.
• Zinc was linked to an increase in tight junction proteins.

Commenting on the review but not involved in it, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MD, MPH, AGAF, director of the Crohn’s and Colitis Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, called it a very important study that expands our understanding of the role of environment in IBD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In July, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first blood-based test to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

The FDA’s approval of Shield (Guardant Health) marks a notable achievement, as individuals at average risk now have the option to receive a simple blood test for CRC screening, starting at age 45.

“No one has an excuse anymore not to be screened,” said John Marshall, MD, director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of Gastrointestinal Cancers and chief medical officer of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, DC.

The approval was based on findings from the ECLIPSE study, which reported that Shield had 83% sensitivity for CRC and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, though only 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions.

While an exciting option, the test has its pros and cons.

A major plus for Shield is it provides a noninvasive, convenient way for patients to be screened for CRC, especially among the approximately 30% Americans who are either not being screened or not up to date with their screening.

The bad news, however, is that it does a poor job of detecting precancerous lesions. This could snowball if patients decide to replace a colonoscopy — which helps both detect and prevent CRC — with the blood test.

This news organization spoke to experts across three core specialties involved in the screening and treatment of CRC — primary care, gastroenterology, and oncology — to better understand both the potential value and potential pitfalls of this new option.

The interview responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.
 

What does this FDA approval mean for CRC screening?

David Lieberman, MD, gastroenterologist and professor emeritus at Oregon Health & Science University: Detecting circulating-free DNA associated with CRC in blood is a major scientific breakthrough. The ease of blood testing will appeal to patients and providers.

Folasade May, MD, director of the gastroenterology quality improvement program at the University of California, Los Angeles: The FDA approval means that we continue to broaden the scope of available tools to help reduce the impact of this largely preventable disease.

Dr. Marshall: Colonoscopy is still the gold standard, but we have to recognize that not everyone does it. And that not everyone wants to send their poop in the mail (with a stool-based test). Now there are no more excuses.

Alan Venook, MD, gastrointestinal medical oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco: Although it’s good to have a blood test that’s approved for CRC screening, I don’t think it moves the bar much in terms of screening. I worry about it overpromising and under-delivering. If it could find polyps or premalignant lesions, that would make a big difference; however, at 13%, that doesn’t really register, so this doesn’t really change anything.

Kenny Lin, MD, a family physician at Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health: I see this test as a good option for the 30% people of CRC screening age who are either not being screened or out of date for screening. I’m a little concerned about the people who are already getting recommended screening and may try to switch to this option.

William Golden, MD, internist and professor of medicine and public health at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas: On a scale of 1-10, I give it a 2. It’s expensive ($900 per test without insurance). It’s also not sensitive for early cancers, which would be its main value. Frankly, there are better strategies to get patients engaged.
 

What do you see as the pros and cons of this test?

Dr. Lin: The pros are that it’s very convenient for patients, and it’s especially easy for physicians if they have a lab in their office and can avoid a referral where patients may never get the test. However, the data I saw were disappointing, with sensitivity and specificity falling short of the stool-based Cologuard test, which is also not invasive and less likely to miss early cancers, precancerous lesions, and polyps.

Dr. Lieberman: A major con is the detection rate of only 13% for advanced precancerous lesions, which means that this test is not likely to result in much cancer prevention. There is good evidence that if advanced precancerous lesions are detected and removed, many — if not most — CRCs can be prevented.

Dr. Marshall: Another issue is the potential for a false-positive result (which occurs for 1 in every 10 tests). With this result, you would do a scope but can’t find what’s going on. This is a big deal. It’s the first of the blood tests that will be used for cancer screening, and it could be scary for a patient to receive a positive result but not be able to figure out where it’s coming from.
 

Will you be recommending this test or relying on its results?

Dr. Lieberman: Patients need to understand that the blood test is inferior to every other screening test and, if selected, would result in less protection against developing CRC or dying from CRC than other screening tests. But models suggest that this test will perform better than no screening. Therefore, it is reasonable to offer the test to individuals who decline any other form of screening.

Dr. May: I will do what I’ve always done — after the FDA approval, I wait for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to endorse it. If it does, then I feel it’s my responsibility to tell my patients about all the options they have and stay up to date on how the tests perform, what the pros and cons are, and what reliable information will help patients make the best decision.

Dr. Venook: No, but I could potentially see us moving it into surveillance mode, where CRC survivors or patients undergoing therapy could take it, which might give us a unique second bite of the apple. The test could potentially be of value in identifying early relapse or recurrence, which might give us a heads-up or jump start on follow-up.
 

Are you concerned that patients won’t return for a colonoscopy after a positive result?

Dr. Golden: This concern is relevant for all tests, including fecal immunochemical test (FIT), but I’ve found that if the patient is willing to do the initial test and it comes back positive, most are willing to do the follow-up. Of course, some folks have issues with this, but now we’ll have a marker in their medical records and can re-engage them through outreach.

Dr. Lieberman: I am concerned that a patient who previously declined to have a colonoscopy may not follow up an abnormal blood test with a colonoscopy. If this occurs, it will render a blood test program ineffective for those patients. Patients should be told upfront that if the test is abnormal, a colonoscopy would be recommended.

Dr. May: This is a big concern that I have. We already have two-step screening processes with FIT, Cologuard, and CT colonography, and strong data show there is attrition. All doctors and companies will need to make it clear that if patients have an abnormal test result, they must undergo a colonoscopy. We must have activated and involved systems of patient follow-up and navigation.

Dr. Lin: I already have some concerns, given that some patients with positive FIT tests don’t get timely follow-up. I see it in my own practice where we call patients to get a colonoscopy, but they don’t take it seriously or their initial counseling wasn’t clear about the possibility of needing a follow-up colonoscopy. If people aren’t being screened for whatever reason in the first place and they get a positive result on the Shield blood test, they might be even less likely to get the necessary follow-up testing afterward.
 

What might this mean for insurance coverage and costs for patients?

Dr. May: This is an important question because if we don’t have equal access, we create or widen disparities. For insurers to cover Shield, it’ll need to be endorsed by major medical societies, including USPSTF. But what will happen in the beginning is that wealthy patients who can pay out of pocket will use it, while lower-income individuals won’t have access until insurers cover it.

Dr. Golden: I could do 70 (or more) FIT tests for the cost of this one blood test. A FIT test should be offered first. We’re advising the Medicaid program that physicians should be required to explain why a patient doesn’t want a FIT test, prior to covering this blood test.

Dr. Venook: It’s too early to say. Although it’s approved, we now have to look at the monetization factor. At the end of the day, we still need a colonoscopy. The science is impressive, but it doesn’t mean we need to spend $900 doing a blood test.

Dr. Lin: I could see the coverage trajectory being similar to that for Cologuard, which had little coverage when it came out 10 years ago, but eventually, Medicare and commercial coverage happened. With Shield, initially, there will be some coverage gaps, especially with commercial insurance, and I can see insurance companies having concerns, especially because the test is expensive compared with other tests and the return isn’t well known. It could also be a waste of money if people with positive tests don’t receive follow-up colonoscopies.
 

What else would you like to share that people may not have considered?

Dr. Marshall: These tests could pick up other genes from other cancers. My worry is that people could have another cancer detected but not find it on a colonoscopy and think the blood test must be wrong. Or they’ll do a scan, which could lead to more scans and tests.

Dr. Golden: This test has received a lot of attention and coverage that didn’t discuss other screening options, limitations, or nuances. Let’s face it — we’ll see lots of TV ads about it, but once we start dealing with the total cost of care and alternate payment models, it’s going to be hard for this test to find a niche.

Dr. Venook: This test has only been validated in a population of ages 45 years or older, which is the conventional screening population. We desperately need something that can work in younger people, where CRC rates are increasing. I’d like to see the research move in that direction.

Dr. Lin: I thought it was unique that the FDA Advisory Panel clearly stated this was better than nothing but also should be used as second-line screening. The agency took pains to say this is not a colonoscopy or even equivalent to the fecal tests in use. But they appropriately did approve it because a lot of people aren’t getting anything at all, which is the biggest problem with CRC screening.
 

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