GI and Hepatology News

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

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

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

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

A joint American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) task force has updated quality indicators considered “fundamental” to all gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures — most of which have a performance target > 98%, implying they should be achieved in nearly every case. 

The task force’s work was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

“The purpose of this paper is to delineate all of the steps that the endoscopist should be thinking about before they perform any endoscopy,” task force member Nicholas Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. 

“Some of these are straightforward — for instance, did we get informed consent? Others are more nuanced — did we appropriately plan for sedation for the procedure, or did we give the right antibiotics before the procedure to prevent an infectious complication after?

“While the vast majority of endoscopists do these measures with every procedure, especially in unusual circumstances or when the procedure is an emergency, they can be overlooked. Having these quality indicators listed in one place should minimize these omissions,” Dr. Shaheen said.
 

Four Priority Indicators

The update represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on GI endoscopic procedures, the most recent of which was published nearly a decade ago.

As in preceding versions, the task force “prioritized indicators that have wide-ranging clinical implications and have been validated in clinical studies.” There are 19 in total, divided into three time periods: Preprocedure (8), intraprocedure (4), and postprocedure (7).

While all 19 indicators are intended to serve as a framework for continual quality improvement efforts among endoscopists and units, the task force recognized a subset of 4 they identified as being a particular priority:

• Frequency with which endoscopy is performed for an indication that is included in a published standard list of appropriate indications and the indication is documented (performance target > 95%) 
• Frequency with which prophylactic antibiotics are administered for appropriate indications (performance target > 98%) 
• Frequency with which a plan for the management of antithrombotic therapy is formulated and documented before the procedure (performance target = 95%) 
• Frequency with which adverse events are documented (performance target > 98%) 

Room for Improvement 

There remains a lack of compliance with some of these indicators, the task force said. 

“Procedures are still performed for questionable indications, adverse events are not always captured and documented, and communication between the endoscopist and patient and/or involved clinicians is sometimes lacking.

“For these reasons, strict attention to the quality indicators in this document and an active plan for improvement in areas of measured deficiency should be a central pillar of the successful practice of endoscopy,” they wrote. 

The task force advised that quality improvement efforts initially focus on the four priority indicators and then progress to include other indicators once it is determined that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions.

Reached for comment, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MD, MPH, AGAF, a gastroenterologist with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that these updated recommendations are “important and commonsense standard procedures that should be followed for all procedures.”

“We recognize endoscopic evaluation plays an important role in the assessment of GI illnesses, but there are also both risks and costs to this as a diagnostic and therapeutic intervention. Thus, it is important to make sure these standards are met, to optimize the outcomes of our patients,” said Dr. Ananthakrishnan, who was not involved in this work.

In a separate statement, the American Gastroenterological Association affirmed that is committed to supporting gastroenterologists in providing high-quality care via improved patients outcomes, increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness. AGA encouraged GIs to visit gastro.org/quality to learn more and find quality measures on topics including Barrett’s esophagus, inflammatory bowel disease, acute pancreatitis, and gastric intestinal metaplasia.

This work had no financial support. Dr. Shaheen and Dr. Ananthakrishnan disclosed having no relevant competing interests.

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

A task force established by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) issued updated recommendations highlighting what they consider to be the highest priority quality indicators for colonoscopy, a list that, for the first time, includes adequate bowel preparation and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

“Endoscopy teams now have an updated set of guidelines which can be used to enhance the quality of their colonoscopies and should certainly use these current quality measures to ‘raise the bar’ on behalf of their patients,” task force member Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The task force published the recommendations online August 21 in The American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on colonoscopy recommendations and incorporates new evidence published since 2015.

“The last set of quality indicators from this group was 9 years ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of new data published in colonoscopy quality,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Keeping up with that data is a challenge, and so guidelines such as these are important in helping clinicians synthesize data on quality of care and implement best practices,” said Dr. Gellad, who was not involved with the task force.
 

Two New Priority Indicators 

The task force identified 15 quality indicators, divided into preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure. It includes five “priority” indicators — two of which are new.

One is the rate of adequate bowel preparation, preferably defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥ 2 in each of three colon segments or by description of the preparation as excellent, good, or adequate. It has a performance target > 90%.

“Inadequate bowel preparation substantially increases the cost of colonoscopy delivery and creates risk and inconvenience for patients, thus warranting a ranking as a priority indicator,” the task force wrote.

Dr. Gellad explained that the addition of this priority indicator is “notable because it highlights the importance of bowel prep in high-quality colonoscopy. It also shifts more of the responsibility of bowel prep from the patient to the practice.”

The second new quality indicator is the SSLDR, which was selected due to its ability to contribute to cancer prevention.

Based on available evidence, the task force recommends a current minimum threshold for the SSLDR of 6%. “This is expected to be revised upward as evidence of increasing detection occurs,” they wrote.

Duke University

Dr. Gellad said the addition of SSLDR is “an important advance in these recommendations. We know that serrated adenomas are a precursor for colorectal cancer and that the detection of these subtle lesions is variable.

“Providing a benchmark encourages practices to measure the detection of serrated adenomas and intervene when rates are below benchmarks. Prior to these benchmarks, it was difficult to know where to peg our expectations,” Dr. Gellad added.
 

Changes to the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)

The ADR remains a priority indicator in the update, albeit with changes.

To keep the ADR measurement consistent with current screening guidelines, the task force now recommends that the ADR be measured starting at age 45 rather than 50 years.

“ADR plays a critical role in evaluating the performance of the colonoscopists,” task force lead Douglas K. Rex, MD, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, said in the statement.

“It is recommended that ADR calculations include screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy but exclude indications of a positive noncolonoscopy screening test and therapeutic procedures for resection or treatment of known neoplasia, genetic cancer syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Rex explained.

The task force recommends a minimum ADR threshold of 35% (40% in men and 30% in women) and that colonoscopists with ADRs below 35% “undertake remedial measures to improve and to achieve acceptable performance.”
 

Additional Priorities 

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) — the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy with intact colons who have full intubation of the cecum with photo documentation of cecal landmarks — remains a priority quality indicator and has a performance target ≥ 95%.

“A trained colonoscopist should achieve a high CIR with a very high level of safety,” the task force wrote. “Low CIRs have been associated with higher PCCRC [postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer] rates.” 

The final priority indicator is the rate of using recommended screening and surveillance intervals, which carries a performance target ≥ 90%.

“We recommend that quality improvement efforts initially focus on high-priority indicators and then progress to other indicators once it is ascertained that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions,” the task force wrote.

“The priority indicators are absolutely important for practices to implement,” Dr. Gellad said.

“There is compelling evidence that these measures are correlated with clinically important outcomes, particularly ADR,” he added. “Many practices already capture this data, and the changes in ADR calculation make measurement less burdensome. Hopefully, this will encourage more practices to collect and report these measures.” 

Dr. Rex is a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; receives research support from Olympus, Medivators, Erbe USA, and Braintree Laboratories; and is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr. Shaheen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gellad has consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.
 

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

A task force established by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) issued updated recommendations highlighting what they consider to be the highest priority quality indicators for colonoscopy, a list that, for the first time, includes adequate bowel preparation and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

“Endoscopy teams now have an updated set of guidelines which can be used to enhance the quality of their colonoscopies and should certainly use these current quality measures to ‘raise the bar’ on behalf of their patients,” task force member Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The task force published the recommendations online August 21 in The American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on colonoscopy recommendations and incorporates new evidence published since 2015.

“The last set of quality indicators from this group was 9 years ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of new data published in colonoscopy quality,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Keeping up with that data is a challenge, and so guidelines such as these are important in helping clinicians synthesize data on quality of care and implement best practices,” said Dr. Gellad, who was not involved with the task force.
 

Two New Priority Indicators 

The task force identified 15 quality indicators, divided into preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure. It includes five “priority” indicators — two of which are new.

One is the rate of adequate bowel preparation, preferably defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥ 2 in each of three colon segments or by description of the preparation as excellent, good, or adequate. It has a performance target > 90%.

“Inadequate bowel preparation substantially increases the cost of colonoscopy delivery and creates risk and inconvenience for patients, thus warranting a ranking as a priority indicator,” the task force wrote.

Dr. Gellad explained that the addition of this priority indicator is “notable because it highlights the importance of bowel prep in high-quality colonoscopy. It also shifts more of the responsibility of bowel prep from the patient to the practice.”

The second new quality indicator is the SSLDR, which was selected due to its ability to contribute to cancer prevention.

Based on available evidence, the task force recommends a current minimum threshold for the SSLDR of 6%. “This is expected to be revised upward as evidence of increasing detection occurs,” they wrote.

Duke University

Dr. Gellad said the addition of SSLDR is “an important advance in these recommendations. We know that serrated adenomas are a precursor for colorectal cancer and that the detection of these subtle lesions is variable.

“Providing a benchmark encourages practices to measure the detection of serrated adenomas and intervene when rates are below benchmarks. Prior to these benchmarks, it was difficult to know where to peg our expectations,” Dr. Gellad added.
 

Changes to the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)

The ADR remains a priority indicator in the update, albeit with changes.

To keep the ADR measurement consistent with current screening guidelines, the task force now recommends that the ADR be measured starting at age 45 rather than 50 years.

“ADR plays a critical role in evaluating the performance of the colonoscopists,” task force lead Douglas K. Rex, MD, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, said in the statement.

“It is recommended that ADR calculations include screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy but exclude indications of a positive noncolonoscopy screening test and therapeutic procedures for resection or treatment of known neoplasia, genetic cancer syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Rex explained.

The task force recommends a minimum ADR threshold of 35% (40% in men and 30% in women) and that colonoscopists with ADRs below 35% “undertake remedial measures to improve and to achieve acceptable performance.”
 

Additional Priorities 

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) — the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy with intact colons who have full intubation of the cecum with photo documentation of cecal landmarks — remains a priority quality indicator and has a performance target ≥ 95%.

“A trained colonoscopist should achieve a high CIR with a very high level of safety,” the task force wrote. “Low CIRs have been associated with higher PCCRC [postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer] rates.” 

The final priority indicator is the rate of using recommended screening and surveillance intervals, which carries a performance target ≥ 90%.

“We recommend that quality improvement efforts initially focus on high-priority indicators and then progress to other indicators once it is ascertained that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions,” the task force wrote.

“The priority indicators are absolutely important for practices to implement,” Dr. Gellad said.

“There is compelling evidence that these measures are correlated with clinically important outcomes, particularly ADR,” he added. “Many practices already capture this data, and the changes in ADR calculation make measurement less burdensome. Hopefully, this will encourage more practices to collect and report these measures.” 

Dr. Rex is a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; receives research support from Olympus, Medivators, Erbe USA, and Braintree Laboratories; and is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr. Shaheen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gellad has consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.
 

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

A task force established by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) issued updated recommendations highlighting what they consider to be the highest priority quality indicators for colonoscopy, a list that, for the first time, includes adequate bowel preparation and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR).

“Endoscopy teams now have an updated set of guidelines which can be used to enhance the quality of their colonoscopies and should certainly use these current quality measures to ‘raise the bar’ on behalf of their patients,” task force member Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a statement.

The task force published the recommendations online August 21 in The American Journal of Gastroenterology and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. It represents the third iteration of the ACG/ASGE quality indicators on colonoscopy recommendations and incorporates new evidence published since 2015.

“The last set of quality indicators from this group was 9 years ago. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of new data published in colonoscopy quality,” Ziad F. Gellad, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, said in an interview.

“Keeping up with that data is a challenge, and so guidelines such as these are important in helping clinicians synthesize data on quality of care and implement best practices,” said Dr. Gellad, who was not involved with the task force.
 

Two New Priority Indicators 

The task force identified 15 quality indicators, divided into preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure. It includes five “priority” indicators — two of which are new.

One is the rate of adequate bowel preparation, preferably defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥ 2 in each of three colon segments or by description of the preparation as excellent, good, or adequate. It has a performance target > 90%.

“Inadequate bowel preparation substantially increases the cost of colonoscopy delivery and creates risk and inconvenience for patients, thus warranting a ranking as a priority indicator,” the task force wrote.

Dr. Gellad explained that the addition of this priority indicator is “notable because it highlights the importance of bowel prep in high-quality colonoscopy. It also shifts more of the responsibility of bowel prep from the patient to the practice.”

The second new quality indicator is the SSLDR, which was selected due to its ability to contribute to cancer prevention.

Based on available evidence, the task force recommends a current minimum threshold for the SSLDR of 6%. “This is expected to be revised upward as evidence of increasing detection occurs,” they wrote.

Duke University

Dr. Gellad said the addition of SSLDR is “an important advance in these recommendations. We know that serrated adenomas are a precursor for colorectal cancer and that the detection of these subtle lesions is variable.

“Providing a benchmark encourages practices to measure the detection of serrated adenomas and intervene when rates are below benchmarks. Prior to these benchmarks, it was difficult to know where to peg our expectations,” Dr. Gellad added.
 

Changes to the Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)

The ADR remains a priority indicator in the update, albeit with changes.

To keep the ADR measurement consistent with current screening guidelines, the task force now recommends that the ADR be measured starting at age 45 rather than 50 years.

“ADR plays a critical role in evaluating the performance of the colonoscopists,” task force lead Douglas K. Rex, MD, a gastroenterologist at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, said in the statement.

“It is recommended that ADR calculations include screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy but exclude indications of a positive noncolonoscopy screening test and therapeutic procedures for resection or treatment of known neoplasia, genetic cancer syndromes, and inflammatory bowel disease,” Dr. Rex explained.

The task force recommends a minimum ADR threshold of 35% (40% in men and 30% in women) and that colonoscopists with ADRs below 35% “undertake remedial measures to improve and to achieve acceptable performance.”
 

Additional Priorities 

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) — the percentage of patients undergoing colonoscopy with intact colons who have full intubation of the cecum with photo documentation of cecal landmarks — remains a priority quality indicator and has a performance target ≥ 95%.

“A trained colonoscopist should achieve a high CIR with a very high level of safety,” the task force wrote. “Low CIRs have been associated with higher PCCRC [postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer] rates.” 

The final priority indicator is the rate of using recommended screening and surveillance intervals, which carries a performance target ≥ 90%.

“We recommend that quality improvement efforts initially focus on high-priority indicators and then progress to other indicators once it is ascertained that endoscopists are performing above recommended thresholds, either at baseline or after corrective interventions,” the task force wrote.

“The priority indicators are absolutely important for practices to implement,” Dr. Gellad said.

“There is compelling evidence that these measures are correlated with clinically important outcomes, particularly ADR,” he added. “Many practices already capture this data, and the changes in ADR calculation make measurement less burdensome. Hopefully, this will encourage more practices to collect and report these measures.” 

Dr. Rex is a consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Braintree Laboratories, Norgine, GI Supply, Medtronic, and Acacia Pharmaceuticals; receives research support from Olympus, Medivators, Erbe USA, and Braintree Laboratories; and is a shareholder in Satisfai Health. Dr. Shaheen had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gellad has consulted for Merck & Co. and Novo Nordisk and is a cofounder of Higgs Boson.
 

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

In the setting of isocaloric eating, time-restricted eating (TRE) did not reduce weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a usual eating pattern (UEP), a small randomized controlled trial found.

The results suggested that any effects of TRE on weight observed in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake and not timing, according to Nisa M. Maruthur, MD, MHS, of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the 12-week trial randomly assigned 41 adults aged 18-69 years with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes 1:1 as follows: To TRE, involving a 10-hour eating window with 80% of calories consumed before 1 PM, or to UEP, involving a ≤ 16-hour window, with at least 50% of calories consumed after 5 PM. The regimen in each group was based on the OmniHeart unsaturated fat diet and the SPICE study.

“The diet was similar to the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] diet for hypertension and maybe a bit higher in unsaturated fat and micronutrients,” said study co-author Scott J. Pilla, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. For each participant, macro- and micronutrient content remained constant throughout the study period, with total calories individually determined at baseline and ranging from 1600 to 3500 kcal/d. “That differs from some TRE studies in which calories were adjusted according to whether participants lost or gained weight,” he said. “This was a purely mechanistic study to determine the impact of time of eating alone with no change in calories.”

The Cohort

The mean age was 59 years, 93% of patients were women, and 93% were Black. The mean body mass index was 36, and the mean baseline weight was 96.2 kg — 95.6 kg in the TRE group and 103.7 kg in the UEP group.

At 12 weeks, weight decreased comparably by 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) in the UEP group. Change in glycemic measures did not differ between the two groups.

Interestingly, self-reporting questionnaires revealed a slight reduction in physical activity in the TRE group, an effect that requires further study. “We don’t know why but anecdotally, some TRE participants said they tended to go to bed earlier,” Dr. Pilla said. Earlier bedtimes may put an end sooner to the daily eating pattern.

Subanalyses of the data are ongoing and will be published later.

“In the context of several clinical trials that suggest a benefit of TRE, our findings suggest that if or when TRE interventions induce weight loss, it is likely in part due to a reduction in energy intake, and therefore, clinicians can counsel patients that TRE may help them lose weight by decreasing their caloric intake,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Krista A. Varady, PhD, and Vanessa M. Oddo, PhD, of the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Illinois–Chicago, said the study results have important clinical implications. “Many patients stop following standard-care diets (such as daily calorie restriction) because they become frustrated with having to monitor food intake vigilantly each day,” they wrote.

Gastroenterologists and Obesity

Of late, support has grown for gastroenterologists to become actively involved in obesity treatment — even to “take ownership” of this field.

In a 2023 article in Gut, Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, made the case for the natural fit between gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and obesity management. He noted that obesity is a significant risk factor for GI, pancreatic, and liver diseases. It can even affect inflammatory bowel disease.

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

In the setting of isocaloric eating, time-restricted eating (TRE) did not reduce weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a usual eating pattern (UEP), a small randomized controlled trial found.

The results suggested that any effects of TRE on weight observed in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake and not timing, according to Nisa M. Maruthur, MD, MHS, of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the 12-week trial randomly assigned 41 adults aged 18-69 years with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes 1:1 as follows: To TRE, involving a 10-hour eating window with 80% of calories consumed before 1 PM, or to UEP, involving a ≤ 16-hour window, with at least 50% of calories consumed after 5 PM. The regimen in each group was based on the OmniHeart unsaturated fat diet and the SPICE study.

“The diet was similar to the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] diet for hypertension and maybe a bit higher in unsaturated fat and micronutrients,” said study co-author Scott J. Pilla, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. For each participant, macro- and micronutrient content remained constant throughout the study period, with total calories individually determined at baseline and ranging from 1600 to 3500 kcal/d. “That differs from some TRE studies in which calories were adjusted according to whether participants lost or gained weight,” he said. “This was a purely mechanistic study to determine the impact of time of eating alone with no change in calories.”

The Cohort

The mean age was 59 years, 93% of patients were women, and 93% were Black. The mean body mass index was 36, and the mean baseline weight was 96.2 kg — 95.6 kg in the TRE group and 103.7 kg in the UEP group.

At 12 weeks, weight decreased comparably by 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) in the UEP group. Change in glycemic measures did not differ between the two groups.

Interestingly, self-reporting questionnaires revealed a slight reduction in physical activity in the TRE group, an effect that requires further study. “We don’t know why but anecdotally, some TRE participants said they tended to go to bed earlier,” Dr. Pilla said. Earlier bedtimes may put an end sooner to the daily eating pattern.

Subanalyses of the data are ongoing and will be published later.

“In the context of several clinical trials that suggest a benefit of TRE, our findings suggest that if or when TRE interventions induce weight loss, it is likely in part due to a reduction in energy intake, and therefore, clinicians can counsel patients that TRE may help them lose weight by decreasing their caloric intake,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Krista A. Varady, PhD, and Vanessa M. Oddo, PhD, of the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Illinois–Chicago, said the study results have important clinical implications. “Many patients stop following standard-care diets (such as daily calorie restriction) because they become frustrated with having to monitor food intake vigilantly each day,” they wrote.

Gastroenterologists and Obesity

Of late, support has grown for gastroenterologists to become actively involved in obesity treatment — even to “take ownership” of this field.

In a 2023 article in Gut, Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, made the case for the natural fit between gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and obesity management. He noted that obesity is a significant risk factor for GI, pancreatic, and liver diseases. It can even affect inflammatory bowel disease.

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

In the setting of isocaloric eating, time-restricted eating (TRE) did not reduce weight or improve glucose homeostasis relative to a usual eating pattern (UEP), a small randomized controlled trial found.

The results suggested that any effects of TRE on weight observed in prior studies may be due to reductions in caloric intake and not timing, according to Nisa M. Maruthur, MD, MHS, of the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, and colleagues.

Published in Annals of Internal Medicine, the 12-week trial randomly assigned 41 adults aged 18-69 years with obesity and prediabetes or diet-controlled diabetes 1:1 as follows: To TRE, involving a 10-hour eating window with 80% of calories consumed before 1 PM, or to UEP, involving a ≤ 16-hour window, with at least 50% of calories consumed after 5 PM. The regimen in each group was based on the OmniHeart unsaturated fat diet and the SPICE study.

“The diet was similar to the DASH [Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension] diet for hypertension and maybe a bit higher in unsaturated fat and micronutrients,” said study co-author Scott J. Pilla, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, in an interview. For each participant, macro- and micronutrient content remained constant throughout the study period, with total calories individually determined at baseline and ranging from 1600 to 3500 kcal/d. “That differs from some TRE studies in which calories were adjusted according to whether participants lost or gained weight,” he said. “This was a purely mechanistic study to determine the impact of time of eating alone with no change in calories.”

The Cohort

The mean age was 59 years, 93% of patients were women, and 93% were Black. The mean body mass index was 36, and the mean baseline weight was 96.2 kg — 95.6 kg in the TRE group and 103.7 kg in the UEP group.

At 12 weeks, weight decreased comparably by 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) in the TRE group and by 2.6 kg (95% CI, 1.5-3.7) in the UEP group. Change in glycemic measures did not differ between the two groups.

Interestingly, self-reporting questionnaires revealed a slight reduction in physical activity in the TRE group, an effect that requires further study. “We don’t know why but anecdotally, some TRE participants said they tended to go to bed earlier,” Dr. Pilla said. Earlier bedtimes may put an end sooner to the daily eating pattern.

Subanalyses of the data are ongoing and will be published later.

“In the context of several clinical trials that suggest a benefit of TRE, our findings suggest that if or when TRE interventions induce weight loss, it is likely in part due to a reduction in energy intake, and therefore, clinicians can counsel patients that TRE may help them lose weight by decreasing their caloric intake,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Krista A. Varady, PhD, and Vanessa M. Oddo, PhD, of the Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition at the University of Illinois–Chicago, said the study results have important clinical implications. “Many patients stop following standard-care diets (such as daily calorie restriction) because they become frustrated with having to monitor food intake vigilantly each day,” they wrote.

Gastroenterologists and Obesity

Of late, support has grown for gastroenterologists to become actively involved in obesity treatment — even to “take ownership” of this field.

In a 2023 article in Gut, Michael Camilleri, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, made the case for the natural fit between gastrointestinal (GI) specialists and obesity management. He noted that obesity is a significant risk factor for GI, pancreatic, and liver diseases. It can even affect inflammatory bowel disease.

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

Obesity has now reached epidemic proportions, with global prevalence of the condition increasing more than threefold between 1975 and 2022. In the United States alone, roughly two in five adults have obesity. As healthcare providers are intimately aware, obesity is linked to many serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, as well as some forms of cancer. As such, it presents a major challenge to chronic disease prevention and overall health.

For many years, management of obesity was considered within the purview of primary care as part of chronic disease management. However, as obesity has become more common, our understanding of the underlying causes of obesity has improved, and optimal strategies to manage and treat obesity have evolved. A new field of obesity medicine has arisen, attracting specialists such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and others. From glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists to an expanding armamentarium of bariatric procedures, emerging therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of patients with obesity and related health conditions.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Dr. Janese Laster, who has built a successful career with a primary focus on obesity medicine. She shares her passionate perspective on why gastroenterologists should play a more prominent role in management of this complex, chronic disease. We also include a summary of obesity-related content presented as part of this spring’s AGA Post-Graduate Course, with helpful clinical pearls from experts Dr. Andres Acosta, Dr. Violeta Popov, Dr. Sonali Paul, and Dr. Pooja Singhal.

Also in our September issue, we highlight a recent, practice-changing randomized controlled trial from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology supporting use of snare tip soft coagulation as the preferred thermal margin treatment to reduce recurrence rates following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Maggie Ham and Dr. Petr Protiva offer their insights into a pressing question on many of our minds — whether to take the 10-year “high-stakes” exam or opt for the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment to maintain American Board of Internal Medicine certification. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Obesity has now reached epidemic proportions, with global prevalence of the condition increasing more than threefold between 1975 and 2022. In the United States alone, roughly two in five adults have obesity. As healthcare providers are intimately aware, obesity is linked to many serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, as well as some forms of cancer. As such, it presents a major challenge to chronic disease prevention and overall health.

For many years, management of obesity was considered within the purview of primary care as part of chronic disease management. However, as obesity has become more common, our understanding of the underlying causes of obesity has improved, and optimal strategies to manage and treat obesity have evolved. A new field of obesity medicine has arisen, attracting specialists such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and others. From glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists to an expanding armamentarium of bariatric procedures, emerging therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of patients with obesity and related health conditions.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Dr. Janese Laster, who has built a successful career with a primary focus on obesity medicine. She shares her passionate perspective on why gastroenterologists should play a more prominent role in management of this complex, chronic disease. We also include a summary of obesity-related content presented as part of this spring’s AGA Post-Graduate Course, with helpful clinical pearls from experts Dr. Andres Acosta, Dr. Violeta Popov, Dr. Sonali Paul, and Dr. Pooja Singhal.

Also in our September issue, we highlight a recent, practice-changing randomized controlled trial from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology supporting use of snare tip soft coagulation as the preferred thermal margin treatment to reduce recurrence rates following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Maggie Ham and Dr. Petr Protiva offer their insights into a pressing question on many of our minds — whether to take the 10-year “high-stakes” exam or opt for the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment to maintain American Board of Internal Medicine certification. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Obesity has now reached epidemic proportions, with global prevalence of the condition increasing more than threefold between 1975 and 2022. In the United States alone, roughly two in five adults have obesity. As healthcare providers are intimately aware, obesity is linked to many serious health conditions, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease, as well as some forms of cancer. As such, it presents a major challenge to chronic disease prevention and overall health.

For many years, management of obesity was considered within the purview of primary care as part of chronic disease management. However, as obesity has become more common, our understanding of the underlying causes of obesity has improved, and optimal strategies to manage and treat obesity have evolved. A new field of obesity medicine has arisen, attracting specialists such as gastroenterologists, surgeons, endocrinologists, and others. From glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists to an expanding armamentarium of bariatric procedures, emerging therapeutics have revolutionized treatment of patients with obesity and related health conditions.

In this month’s Member Spotlight, we introduce you to gastroenterologist Dr. Janese Laster, who has built a successful career with a primary focus on obesity medicine. She shares her passionate perspective on why gastroenterologists should play a more prominent role in management of this complex, chronic disease. We also include a summary of obesity-related content presented as part of this spring’s AGA Post-Graduate Course, with helpful clinical pearls from experts Dr. Andres Acosta, Dr. Violeta Popov, Dr. Sonali Paul, and Dr. Pooja Singhal.

Also in our September issue, we highlight a recent, practice-changing randomized controlled trial from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology supporting use of snare tip soft coagulation as the preferred thermal margin treatment to reduce recurrence rates following colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Maggie Ham and Dr. Petr Protiva offer their insights into a pressing question on many of our minds — whether to take the 10-year “high-stakes” exam or opt for the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment to maintain American Board of Internal Medicine certification. As always, thanks for reading and please don’t hesitate to reach out with suggestions for future coverage.

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc

Editor in Chief

Dear colleagues,

When the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made changes to its recertification process, introducing its continuous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) in 2014, there was significant controversy across subspecialties. In response, the ABIM accreditation process has evolved. Currently, there remains the traditional 10-year MOC exam, and a newly introduced Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) where questions are answered every quarter. But which is the better one for you?

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Petr Protiva and Dr. Maggie Ham discuss their experiences with these differing assessment methods. Dr. Ham touches on the flexibility and convenience of the LKA, while Dr. Protiva writes about the benefits of the focused preparation and clear endpoint that the 10-year exam offers.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Traditional 10-Year ABIM Exam: A Personal Perspective

BY PETR PROTIVA, MD, MPH, AGAF

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers board certification in gastroenterology, a mark of professional excellence. Physicians can maintain their certification through the traditional 10-year examination or the newer Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

I completed my initial certification exam in 2003 and currently practice gastroenterology full time at the West Haven (Conn.) VA, where I am associate chief of gastroenterology, and the Yale School of Medicine. I am a clinician educator, running clinical trials and performing general and some advanced endoscopy.

Yale School of Medicine

As an academic gastroenterologist, I recertified in November 2023 using the traditional 10-year examination. An informal survey among my colleagues revealed that most opted for the LKA route. The traditional exam offers consistency, a clear endpoint, and a comprehensive review but comes with high stakes, significant preparation requirements, and potential for outdated information. In contrast, the LKA promotes continuous learning, flexibility, and immediate feedback, though it requires ongoing commitment. The LKA is generally perceived as the preferable option for maintaining and enhancing a current knowledge base.

In a highly academic environment with ample opportunities for learning and staying current with clinical science, the traditional exam’s drawbacks can be mitigated. My decision to opt for the 10-year exam was based on prior experience and the ease of accessing and maintaining knowledge in an academic setting. I considered the LKA as well, but there’s no clear answer as to which exam is “better.” The choice ultimately depends on individual physician preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. This piece recounts my experience with the 10-year recertification exam in 2023.
 

Preparing for the 10-Year Exam

In the year my recertification was due, I logged into my ABIM account to verify requirements and deadlines. After signing up for the recertification exam on the ABIM website, I was directed to the Pearson Vue website to select my testing center and date. The process was straightforward and glitch-free.

To fulfill the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) point requirements, it is necessary to systematically accumulate points through accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities. The ABIM web portal indicates how many MOC points you are missing for the recertification cycle. I converted my UpToDate CME credits into ABIM MOC points, a straightforward process if you follow the necessary steps and keep your accounts updated.

Numerous resources are available for assessing and testing your knowledge prior to the exam. My first assessment included an online GI Board question bank, followed by a virtual Board Review Course. Next, I used the GI society-based Self-Assessment Test, which was well-suited for honing testing skills as well as reviewing the questions and answers in detail. Both the online question bank and GI society tests offered additional MOC points upon successful completion of practice exams. I also found it useful to reread guidelines in areas outside my usual practice and use UpToDate on an ongoing basis, like in everyday clinical practice. Completing the MOC requirements well ahead of my exam date was relatively easy.
 

Exam Experience

The exam itself is a 10-hour, grueling experience, but I was familiar with the format and expectations. The exam day was divided into several sessions, each containing a maximum of 60 multiple-choice questions, usually totaling 220 questions with an average of 2 minutes per question. The use of UpToDate is permitted during the recertification exam. While UpToDate is an excellent clinical resource, it cannot substitute for comprehensive knowledge. It is useful for verifying specific facts but cannot fill knowledge gaps during the exam.

Pros and Cons of the 10-Year Exam

Pros:

• Focused Preparation: Preparing for a single, comprehensive exam leads to an in-depth review of the entire subspecialty, reinforcing foundational knowledge and ensuring breadth in less familiar areas.
• Clear Endpoint: The 10-year exam offers a clear endpoint. Once passed, the certification is valid for the next decade, allowing focus on practice or academic endeavors without a need for ongoing assessments.
• Consistency: The standardized nature of the exam ensures consistency in the assessment process, with all physicians tested under the same conditions.
• Benchmarking: A decade-long interval provides a significant time frame for measuring knowledge and expertise, allowing comparison with other test takers.

Cons:

• High Stakes: The exam is high stakes, creating significant stress. Failure can have serious professional consequences, potentially affecting credentials and career.
• Rigidity: The fixed schedule offers little flexibility, requiring careful planning and preparation, which may not align with personal or professional circumstances.
• Comprehensive Nature: Extensive preparation is challenging for busy physicians. Balancing study time with clinical responsibilities can be difficult.
• Outdated Information: Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and the 10-year interval may not reflect the most current practices, leading to gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion

While I cannot directly compare my experience to the LKA, the traditional 10-year exam has both strengths and weaknesses. It requires extensive preparation and is high stakes, but it offers a clear endpoint and comprehensive review. The choice between the 10-year exam and the LKA depends on individual preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. In an academic environment, the traditional exam can be a good option, but continuous medical education remains essential regardless of the recertification method chosen.

Dr. Protiva is associate chief of gastroenterology at the West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center, and associate professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. He has no disclosures related to this article.

The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment: Flexible and Convenient

BY MAGGIE HAM, MD, AGAF

I completed my initial certification exam in 2013 when I completed gastroenterology fellowship training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. I am currently in clinical practice at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California, where I see patients and perform endoscopy daily.

I practice general gastroenterology and hepatology with an emphasis on inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer prevention, and women’s health. I am also the medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, physician in charge of a building at Kaiser, and assistant chief of gastroenterology. My husband and I are both gastroenterologists with a child in elementary school.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Two years ago, I decided to embark upon the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) for gastroenterology. This is offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in lieu of the 10-year recertification examination. As a full-time working mother, I could not fathom the time it would take to study and sit down for the high-stakes 10-year exam.

The LKA consists of 30 questions per quarter, which equates to 600 questions over 5 years. One hundred questions may be skipped over the 5-year period. The questions can be answered from anywhere with an internet-connected device without any camera monitoring. I would often answer questions from the comfort of my own home using my laptop, but could also do so using my phone while waiting in line at the store or on a long plane ride. The 30 questions do not need to be answered in the same sitting, so within the quarter I can save my progress and answer the remaining questions at my convenience. This has worked well for me alongside my personal and professional obligations.

I can download my progress report which informs me of my score, and what the passing score is. I can see what the average score is, how I am performing relative to that, and how I am faring in each category (ie, esophagus, stomach and duodenum, liver, etc.). I also receive Maintenance of Certification points with each LKA question I answer correctly. With the 10-year ABIM recertification exam, I would still need to complete MOC.

While there is a 4-minute time limit for each question, it really has not been an issue. If needed, I can request to extend the time, to read or to look things up. It is an open book exam, so I have learned and kept abreast of GI knowledge. Any references other than another human may be used. I typically use UpToDate and the GI society guidelines, which have been sufficient. Occasionally there are experimental questions sprinkled throughout the exam, so I may never know the answer. Otherwise, the solution to each question will be presented to me immediately upon answering, with an explanation accompanied by references. I appreciate that this keeps me updated with the latest guidelines and recommendations, which was my primary reason for selecting the LKA.

At the end of the 5 years, you may choose to continue the LKA cycle, or take the 10-year exam. If you do not pass the LKA, they do give you a 1-year grace period to pass the exam if you want to continue to participate in MOC.

The quarter does seem to come around fairly quickly, but they do send frequent reminders by email or text as the deadline approaches. And if you forget to answer all the questions in a quarter, the LKA allows for 100 questions that may be skipped over the 5-year period.

Being able to answer questions from anywhere at any time is incredibly flexible and convenient. The immediate feedback is also great and helps me identify my strengths and weaknesses. While I will not know until the end of the 5-year period whether I have passed or not, I can check my progress report which gives me an idea of where I stand. Overall, I would say I am satisfied with the LKA, as it has been easy to maintain certification while effectively contributing to my continuing medical education.

Dr. Ham is a gastroenterologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California. She is also medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Southern Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura. She has no disclosures related to this article.

Dear colleagues,

When the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made changes to its recertification process, introducing its continuous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) in 2014, there was significant controversy across subspecialties. In response, the ABIM accreditation process has evolved. Currently, there remains the traditional 10-year MOC exam, and a newly introduced Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) where questions are answered every quarter. But which is the better one for you?

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Petr Protiva and Dr. Maggie Ham discuss their experiences with these differing assessment methods. Dr. Ham touches on the flexibility and convenience of the LKA, while Dr. Protiva writes about the benefits of the focused preparation and clear endpoint that the 10-year exam offers.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Traditional 10-Year ABIM Exam: A Personal Perspective

BY PETR PROTIVA, MD, MPH, AGAF

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers board certification in gastroenterology, a mark of professional excellence. Physicians can maintain their certification through the traditional 10-year examination or the newer Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

I completed my initial certification exam in 2003 and currently practice gastroenterology full time at the West Haven (Conn.) VA, where I am associate chief of gastroenterology, and the Yale School of Medicine. I am a clinician educator, running clinical trials and performing general and some advanced endoscopy.

Yale School of Medicine

As an academic gastroenterologist, I recertified in November 2023 using the traditional 10-year examination. An informal survey among my colleagues revealed that most opted for the LKA route. The traditional exam offers consistency, a clear endpoint, and a comprehensive review but comes with high stakes, significant preparation requirements, and potential for outdated information. In contrast, the LKA promotes continuous learning, flexibility, and immediate feedback, though it requires ongoing commitment. The LKA is generally perceived as the preferable option for maintaining and enhancing a current knowledge base.

In a highly academic environment with ample opportunities for learning and staying current with clinical science, the traditional exam’s drawbacks can be mitigated. My decision to opt for the 10-year exam was based on prior experience and the ease of accessing and maintaining knowledge in an academic setting. I considered the LKA as well, but there’s no clear answer as to which exam is “better.” The choice ultimately depends on individual physician preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. This piece recounts my experience with the 10-year recertification exam in 2023.
 

Preparing for the 10-Year Exam

In the year my recertification was due, I logged into my ABIM account to verify requirements and deadlines. After signing up for the recertification exam on the ABIM website, I was directed to the Pearson Vue website to select my testing center and date. The process was straightforward and glitch-free.

To fulfill the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) point requirements, it is necessary to systematically accumulate points through accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities. The ABIM web portal indicates how many MOC points you are missing for the recertification cycle. I converted my UpToDate CME credits into ABIM MOC points, a straightforward process if you follow the necessary steps and keep your accounts updated.

Numerous resources are available for assessing and testing your knowledge prior to the exam. My first assessment included an online GI Board question bank, followed by a virtual Board Review Course. Next, I used the GI society-based Self-Assessment Test, which was well-suited for honing testing skills as well as reviewing the questions and answers in detail. Both the online question bank and GI society tests offered additional MOC points upon successful completion of practice exams. I also found it useful to reread guidelines in areas outside my usual practice and use UpToDate on an ongoing basis, like in everyday clinical practice. Completing the MOC requirements well ahead of my exam date was relatively easy.
 

Exam Experience

The exam itself is a 10-hour, grueling experience, but I was familiar with the format and expectations. The exam day was divided into several sessions, each containing a maximum of 60 multiple-choice questions, usually totaling 220 questions with an average of 2 minutes per question. The use of UpToDate is permitted during the recertification exam. While UpToDate is an excellent clinical resource, it cannot substitute for comprehensive knowledge. It is useful for verifying specific facts but cannot fill knowledge gaps during the exam.

Pros and Cons of the 10-Year Exam

Pros:

• Focused Preparation: Preparing for a single, comprehensive exam leads to an in-depth review of the entire subspecialty, reinforcing foundational knowledge and ensuring breadth in less familiar areas.
• Clear Endpoint: The 10-year exam offers a clear endpoint. Once passed, the certification is valid for the next decade, allowing focus on practice or academic endeavors without a need for ongoing assessments.
• Consistency: The standardized nature of the exam ensures consistency in the assessment process, with all physicians tested under the same conditions.
• Benchmarking: A decade-long interval provides a significant time frame for measuring knowledge and expertise, allowing comparison with other test takers.

Cons:

• High Stakes: The exam is high stakes, creating significant stress. Failure can have serious professional consequences, potentially affecting credentials and career.
• Rigidity: The fixed schedule offers little flexibility, requiring careful planning and preparation, which may not align with personal or professional circumstances.
• Comprehensive Nature: Extensive preparation is challenging for busy physicians. Balancing study time with clinical responsibilities can be difficult.
• Outdated Information: Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and the 10-year interval may not reflect the most current practices, leading to gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion

While I cannot directly compare my experience to the LKA, the traditional 10-year exam has both strengths and weaknesses. It requires extensive preparation and is high stakes, but it offers a clear endpoint and comprehensive review. The choice between the 10-year exam and the LKA depends on individual preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. In an academic environment, the traditional exam can be a good option, but continuous medical education remains essential regardless of the recertification method chosen.

Dr. Protiva is associate chief of gastroenterology at the West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center, and associate professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. He has no disclosures related to this article.

The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment: Flexible and Convenient

BY MAGGIE HAM, MD, AGAF

I completed my initial certification exam in 2013 when I completed gastroenterology fellowship training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. I am currently in clinical practice at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California, where I see patients and perform endoscopy daily.

I practice general gastroenterology and hepatology with an emphasis on inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer prevention, and women’s health. I am also the medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, physician in charge of a building at Kaiser, and assistant chief of gastroenterology. My husband and I are both gastroenterologists with a child in elementary school.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Two years ago, I decided to embark upon the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) for gastroenterology. This is offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in lieu of the 10-year recertification examination. As a full-time working mother, I could not fathom the time it would take to study and sit down for the high-stakes 10-year exam.

The LKA consists of 30 questions per quarter, which equates to 600 questions over 5 years. One hundred questions may be skipped over the 5-year period. The questions can be answered from anywhere with an internet-connected device without any camera monitoring. I would often answer questions from the comfort of my own home using my laptop, but could also do so using my phone while waiting in line at the store or on a long plane ride. The 30 questions do not need to be answered in the same sitting, so within the quarter I can save my progress and answer the remaining questions at my convenience. This has worked well for me alongside my personal and professional obligations.

I can download my progress report which informs me of my score, and what the passing score is. I can see what the average score is, how I am performing relative to that, and how I am faring in each category (ie, esophagus, stomach and duodenum, liver, etc.). I also receive Maintenance of Certification points with each LKA question I answer correctly. With the 10-year ABIM recertification exam, I would still need to complete MOC.

While there is a 4-minute time limit for each question, it really has not been an issue. If needed, I can request to extend the time, to read or to look things up. It is an open book exam, so I have learned and kept abreast of GI knowledge. Any references other than another human may be used. I typically use UpToDate and the GI society guidelines, which have been sufficient. Occasionally there are experimental questions sprinkled throughout the exam, so I may never know the answer. Otherwise, the solution to each question will be presented to me immediately upon answering, with an explanation accompanied by references. I appreciate that this keeps me updated with the latest guidelines and recommendations, which was my primary reason for selecting the LKA.

At the end of the 5 years, you may choose to continue the LKA cycle, or take the 10-year exam. If you do not pass the LKA, they do give you a 1-year grace period to pass the exam if you want to continue to participate in MOC.

The quarter does seem to come around fairly quickly, but they do send frequent reminders by email or text as the deadline approaches. And if you forget to answer all the questions in a quarter, the LKA allows for 100 questions that may be skipped over the 5-year period.

Being able to answer questions from anywhere at any time is incredibly flexible and convenient. The immediate feedback is also great and helps me identify my strengths and weaknesses. While I will not know until the end of the 5-year period whether I have passed or not, I can check my progress report which gives me an idea of where I stand. Overall, I would say I am satisfied with the LKA, as it has been easy to maintain certification while effectively contributing to my continuing medical education.

Dr. Ham is a gastroenterologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California. She is also medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Southern Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura. She has no disclosures related to this article.

Dear colleagues,

When the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) made changes to its recertification process, introducing its continuous Maintenance of Certification (MOC) in 2014, there was significant controversy across subspecialties. In response, the ABIM accreditation process has evolved. Currently, there remains the traditional 10-year MOC exam, and a newly introduced Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) where questions are answered every quarter. But which is the better one for you?

In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Petr Protiva and Dr. Maggie Ham discuss their experiences with these differing assessment methods. Dr. Ham touches on the flexibility and convenience of the LKA, while Dr. Protiva writes about the benefits of the focused preparation and clear endpoint that the 10-year exam offers.

Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.

Traditional 10-Year ABIM Exam: A Personal Perspective

BY PETR PROTIVA, MD, MPH, AGAF

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) offers board certification in gastroenterology, a mark of professional excellence. Physicians can maintain their certification through the traditional 10-year examination or the newer Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA).

I completed my initial certification exam in 2003 and currently practice gastroenterology full time at the West Haven (Conn.) VA, where I am associate chief of gastroenterology, and the Yale School of Medicine. I am a clinician educator, running clinical trials and performing general and some advanced endoscopy.

Yale School of Medicine

As an academic gastroenterologist, I recertified in November 2023 using the traditional 10-year examination. An informal survey among my colleagues revealed that most opted for the LKA route. The traditional exam offers consistency, a clear endpoint, and a comprehensive review but comes with high stakes, significant preparation requirements, and potential for outdated information. In contrast, the LKA promotes continuous learning, flexibility, and immediate feedback, though it requires ongoing commitment. The LKA is generally perceived as the preferable option for maintaining and enhancing a current knowledge base.

In a highly academic environment with ample opportunities for learning and staying current with clinical science, the traditional exam’s drawbacks can be mitigated. My decision to opt for the 10-year exam was based on prior experience and the ease of accessing and maintaining knowledge in an academic setting. I considered the LKA as well, but there’s no clear answer as to which exam is “better.” The choice ultimately depends on individual physician preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. This piece recounts my experience with the 10-year recertification exam in 2023.
 

Preparing for the 10-Year Exam

In the year my recertification was due, I logged into my ABIM account to verify requirements and deadlines. After signing up for the recertification exam on the ABIM website, I was directed to the Pearson Vue website to select my testing center and date. The process was straightforward and glitch-free.

To fulfill the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) point requirements, it is necessary to systematically accumulate points through accredited Continuing Medical Education (CME) activities. The ABIM web portal indicates how many MOC points you are missing for the recertification cycle. I converted my UpToDate CME credits into ABIM MOC points, a straightforward process if you follow the necessary steps and keep your accounts updated.

Numerous resources are available for assessing and testing your knowledge prior to the exam. My first assessment included an online GI Board question bank, followed by a virtual Board Review Course. Next, I used the GI society-based Self-Assessment Test, which was well-suited for honing testing skills as well as reviewing the questions and answers in detail. Both the online question bank and GI society tests offered additional MOC points upon successful completion of practice exams. I also found it useful to reread guidelines in areas outside my usual practice and use UpToDate on an ongoing basis, like in everyday clinical practice. Completing the MOC requirements well ahead of my exam date was relatively easy.
 

Exam Experience

The exam itself is a 10-hour, grueling experience, but I was familiar with the format and expectations. The exam day was divided into several sessions, each containing a maximum of 60 multiple-choice questions, usually totaling 220 questions with an average of 2 minutes per question. The use of UpToDate is permitted during the recertification exam. While UpToDate is an excellent clinical resource, it cannot substitute for comprehensive knowledge. It is useful for verifying specific facts but cannot fill knowledge gaps during the exam.

Pros and Cons of the 10-Year Exam

Pros:

• Focused Preparation: Preparing for a single, comprehensive exam leads to an in-depth review of the entire subspecialty, reinforcing foundational knowledge and ensuring breadth in less familiar areas.
• Clear Endpoint: The 10-year exam offers a clear endpoint. Once passed, the certification is valid for the next decade, allowing focus on practice or academic endeavors without a need for ongoing assessments.
• Consistency: The standardized nature of the exam ensures consistency in the assessment process, with all physicians tested under the same conditions.
• Benchmarking: A decade-long interval provides a significant time frame for measuring knowledge and expertise, allowing comparison with other test takers.

Cons:

• High Stakes: The exam is high stakes, creating significant stress. Failure can have serious professional consequences, potentially affecting credentials and career.
• Rigidity: The fixed schedule offers little flexibility, requiring careful planning and preparation, which may not align with personal or professional circumstances.
• Comprehensive Nature: Extensive preparation is challenging for busy physicians. Balancing study time with clinical responsibilities can be difficult.
• Outdated Information: Medical knowledge evolves rapidly, and the 10-year interval may not reflect the most current practices, leading to gaps in knowledge.

Conclusion

While I cannot directly compare my experience to the LKA, the traditional 10-year exam has both strengths and weaknesses. It requires extensive preparation and is high stakes, but it offers a clear endpoint and comprehensive review. The choice between the 10-year exam and the LKA depends on individual preferences, learning styles, and professional circumstances. In an academic environment, the traditional exam can be a good option, but continuous medical education remains essential regardless of the recertification method chosen.

Dr. Protiva is associate chief of gastroenterology at the West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center, and associate professor of medicine (digestive diseases) at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn. He has no disclosures related to this article.

The Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment: Flexible and Convenient

BY MAGGIE HAM, MD, AGAF

I completed my initial certification exam in 2013 when I completed gastroenterology fellowship training at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. I am currently in clinical practice at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California, where I see patients and perform endoscopy daily.

I practice general gastroenterology and hepatology with an emphasis on inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer prevention, and women’s health. I am also the medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura, physician in charge of a building at Kaiser, and assistant chief of gastroenterology. My husband and I are both gastroenterologists with a child in elementary school.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group

Two years ago, I decided to embark upon the Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA) for gastroenterology. This is offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in lieu of the 10-year recertification examination. As a full-time working mother, I could not fathom the time it would take to study and sit down for the high-stakes 10-year exam.

The LKA consists of 30 questions per quarter, which equates to 600 questions over 5 years. One hundred questions may be skipped over the 5-year period. The questions can be answered from anywhere with an internet-connected device without any camera monitoring. I would often answer questions from the comfort of my own home using my laptop, but could also do so using my phone while waiting in line at the store or on a long plane ride. The 30 questions do not need to be answered in the same sitting, so within the quarter I can save my progress and answer the remaining questions at my convenience. This has worked well for me alongside my personal and professional obligations.

I can download my progress report which informs me of my score, and what the passing score is. I can see what the average score is, how I am performing relative to that, and how I am faring in each category (ie, esophagus, stomach and duodenum, liver, etc.). I also receive Maintenance of Certification points with each LKA question I answer correctly. With the 10-year ABIM recertification exam, I would still need to complete MOC.

While there is a 4-minute time limit for each question, it really has not been an issue. If needed, I can request to extend the time, to read or to look things up. It is an open book exam, so I have learned and kept abreast of GI knowledge. Any references other than another human may be used. I typically use UpToDate and the GI society guidelines, which have been sufficient. Occasionally there are experimental questions sprinkled throughout the exam, so I may never know the answer. Otherwise, the solution to each question will be presented to me immediately upon answering, with an explanation accompanied by references. I appreciate that this keeps me updated with the latest guidelines and recommendations, which was my primary reason for selecting the LKA.

At the end of the 5 years, you may choose to continue the LKA cycle, or take the 10-year exam. If you do not pass the LKA, they do give you a 1-year grace period to pass the exam if you want to continue to participate in MOC.

The quarter does seem to come around fairly quickly, but they do send frequent reminders by email or text as the deadline approaches. And if you forget to answer all the questions in a quarter, the LKA allows for 100 questions that may be skipped over the 5-year period.

Being able to answer questions from anywhere at any time is incredibly flexible and convenient. The immediate feedback is also great and helps me identify my strengths and weaknesses. While I will not know until the end of the 5-year period whether I have passed or not, I can check my progress report which gives me an idea of where I stand. Overall, I would say I am satisfied with the LKA, as it has been easy to maintain certification while effectively contributing to my continuing medical education.

Dr. Ham is a gastroenterologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group in Ventura, California. She is also medical director of the gastroenterology lab at Southern Community Memorial Hospital in Ventura. She has no disclosures related to this article.

Stigma around obesity can have a crippling effect on patients. Janese Laster, MD, sees the impact of this problem every day.

It takes a long time for some patients with obesity to acknowledge that they need help, said Dr. Laster, a bariatric endoscopist who specializes in gastroenterology, nutrition, and obesity medicine at Gut Theory Total Digestive Care, and Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “If somebody has high blood pressure or has a cut or has chest pain, you don’t wait for things. You would go seek help immediately. I wish more patients reached out sooner and didn’t struggle.”

Courtesy Dr. Janese Laster

Another big challenge is making sure patients have insurance coverage for things like medications, surgery, and bariatric endoscopy, she added.

Her response: education and advocacy. “I’m giving as many talks as I can to fellows, creating courses for residents and fellows and medical students” to change the way physicians talk about obesity and excess weight, she said. Patients need to understand that physicians care about them, that “we’re not judging and we’re changing that perspective.”

Dr. Laster is also working with members of Congress to get bills passed for coverage of obesity medication and procedures. In an interview with GI & Hepatology News, she spoke more about the intersection between nutrition, medicine and bariatric procedures and the importance of offering patients multiple solutions.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI? 

It allowed me a little bit of everything. You have clinic, where you can really interact with patients and get to the root of their problem. You have preventative care with routine colonoscopies and upper endoscopies to prevent for cancer. But then you also have fun stuff — which my mom told me to stop saying out loud — ‘bleeders’ and acute things that you get to fix immediately. So, you get the adrenaline rush too. I like it because you get the best of all worlds and it’s really hard to get bored.

Q: How did you become interested in nutrition and bariatric endoscopy?

My parents had a garden and never let us eat processed foods. In residency, I kept seeing the same medical problems over and over again. Everybody had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes. Then in GI clinic, everybody had abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, heartburn, and a million GI appointments for these same things. Everyone’s upper endoscopy or colonoscopy was negative. Something else had to be going on.

And that’s sort of where it came from; figuring out the common denominator. It had to be what people were eating. There’s also the prevalence of patients with obesity going up every single year. Correlating all these other medical problems with people’s diets led me down the rabbit hole of: What else can we be doing?

Most people don’t want to undergo surgery. Only 2% of people eligible for surgery actually do it, even though it works. The reasons are because it’s invasive or there’s shame behind it. Bariatric endoscopy is another option that’s out here, that’s less invasive. I’m an endoscopist and gastroenterologist. I should be able to offer all those things and I should know more about nutrition. We don’t talk about it enough.
 

Q: Do you think more GI doctors should become better educated about nutrition?

100%. Every patient I see has seen a GI doctor before and says, ‘No one has ever told me that if I have carbonated beverages and cheese every day, I’m going to be bloated and constipated.’ And that shouldn’t be the case.

Q: Why do you think that more GI doctors don’t get the education on nutrition during their medical training?

I think it’s our healthcare system. It’s very much focused on secondary treatment rather than preventative care. There’s no emphasis on preventing things from happening.

We’re really good at reactionary medicine. People who have an ulcer, big polyps and colon cancer, esophageal cancer — we do those things really well. But I think because there’s no ICD-10 codes for preventive care via nutrition education, and no good reimbursement, then there’s no incentive for hospital systems to pay for these things. It’s a system based on RVUs (relative value units) and numbers. That’s been our trajectory. We’ve been so focused on reactionary medicine rather than saying, ‘Okay, let’s stop this from happening.’

We just didn’t talk about nutrition in medical school, in residency, or in fellowship. It was looked at as a soft science. When I was in school, people would also say, ‘No one’s going to change. So it’s a waste of your time essentially to talk to people about making dietary changes.’ I feel like if you give people the opportunity, you have to give them the chance. You can’t just write everybody off. Some people won’t change, but that’s okay. They should at least have the opportunity to do so.
 

Q: How do you determine whether a patient is a good candidate for bariatric surgery?

It’s based on the guidelines: If they meet the BMI requirements, if they have obesity-associated comorbidities, their risk for surgery is low. But it’s also whether they want to do it or not. A patient has to be in the mindset and be ready for it. They need to want to have surgery or bariatric endoscopy, or to use medications, or start to make a change. Some people aren’t there yet — that preemptive stage of making a change. They want the solution, but they’re not ready to do that legwork yet.

And all of it is work. I tell patients, ‘Whether it’s medication or bariatric endoscopy or bariatric surgery, you still have work to do. None of it is going to just magically happen where you could just continue to do the same thing you’re doing now and you’re going to lose weight and keep it off.’
 

Q: What advances in obesity prevention are you excited about?

I’m excited that bariatric endoscopy came about in the first place, because in every other field there are less invasive approaches that have become available. I’m also excited about the emergence of weight loss medication, like GLP-1s. I think they are a tool that we need.

Q: Do you think the weight loss medications may negate the need for surgery?

I don’t think they necessarily reduce the need for surgery. There’s still a lot we don’t know about why they work in some patients and why they don’t work in others.

Some of our colleagues have come up with phenotypes and blood tests so we can better understand which things will work in different patients. Surgery doesn’t work for some patients. People may need a combination of both after they reach a plateau. I’m excited that people see this as something that we should be researching and putting more effort into — that obesity isn’t a disease of moral failure, that people with excess weight just need to ‘move more’ or ‘eat less’ and it’s their fault. I’m glad people are starting to understand that.
 

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

Probably two. One of them is Andrea E Reid, MD, MPH, a dean of medicine at Harvard. She gives you such motivation to achieve things, no matter how big your idea is or how crazy it may seem. If you have something that you think is important, you go after it. Another person is Christopher C. Thompson, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the father of bariatric endoscopy in a sense. He embodies what Dr. Reid talks about: crazy big ideas. And he goes after them and he succeeds. Having him push me and giving me that type of encouragement was invaluable.

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

Every Saturday is yoga or some type of movement. Spending some time outside doing something, whether it’s messing around with plants that I’m not very good at, or going for a walk.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Text

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

New York

Favorite breakfast?

Avocado toast

Place you most want to travel to?

Istanbul

Favorite season?

Fall

Favorite ice cream flavor?

Raspberry sorbet

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

One

Best place you ever went on vacation?

Greece

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

Own a clothing store

Favorite type of music?

Old school R&B

Favorite movie genre?

Romantic comedy or drama

Cat person or dog person?

Dog

Favorite sport?

Football

Favorite holiday?

Christmas

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Stigma around obesity can have a crippling effect on patients. Janese Laster, MD, sees the impact of this problem every day.

It takes a long time for some patients with obesity to acknowledge that they need help, said Dr. Laster, a bariatric endoscopist who specializes in gastroenterology, nutrition, and obesity medicine at Gut Theory Total Digestive Care, and Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “If somebody has high blood pressure or has a cut or has chest pain, you don’t wait for things. You would go seek help immediately. I wish more patients reached out sooner and didn’t struggle.”

Courtesy Dr. Janese Laster

Another big challenge is making sure patients have insurance coverage for things like medications, surgery, and bariatric endoscopy, she added.

Her response: education and advocacy. “I’m giving as many talks as I can to fellows, creating courses for residents and fellows and medical students” to change the way physicians talk about obesity and excess weight, she said. Patients need to understand that physicians care about them, that “we’re not judging and we’re changing that perspective.”

Dr. Laster is also working with members of Congress to get bills passed for coverage of obesity medication and procedures. In an interview with GI & Hepatology News, she spoke more about the intersection between nutrition, medicine and bariatric procedures and the importance of offering patients multiple solutions.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI? 

It allowed me a little bit of everything. You have clinic, where you can really interact with patients and get to the root of their problem. You have preventative care with routine colonoscopies and upper endoscopies to prevent for cancer. But then you also have fun stuff — which my mom told me to stop saying out loud — ‘bleeders’ and acute things that you get to fix immediately. So, you get the adrenaline rush too. I like it because you get the best of all worlds and it’s really hard to get bored.

Q: How did you become interested in nutrition and bariatric endoscopy?

My parents had a garden and never let us eat processed foods. In residency, I kept seeing the same medical problems over and over again. Everybody had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes. Then in GI clinic, everybody had abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, heartburn, and a million GI appointments for these same things. Everyone’s upper endoscopy or colonoscopy was negative. Something else had to be going on.

And that’s sort of where it came from; figuring out the common denominator. It had to be what people were eating. There’s also the prevalence of patients with obesity going up every single year. Correlating all these other medical problems with people’s diets led me down the rabbit hole of: What else can we be doing?

Most people don’t want to undergo surgery. Only 2% of people eligible for surgery actually do it, even though it works. The reasons are because it’s invasive or there’s shame behind it. Bariatric endoscopy is another option that’s out here, that’s less invasive. I’m an endoscopist and gastroenterologist. I should be able to offer all those things and I should know more about nutrition. We don’t talk about it enough.
 

Q: Do you think more GI doctors should become better educated about nutrition?

100%. Every patient I see has seen a GI doctor before and says, ‘No one has ever told me that if I have carbonated beverages and cheese every day, I’m going to be bloated and constipated.’ And that shouldn’t be the case.

Q: Why do you think that more GI doctors don’t get the education on nutrition during their medical training?

I think it’s our healthcare system. It’s very much focused on secondary treatment rather than preventative care. There’s no emphasis on preventing things from happening.

We’re really good at reactionary medicine. People who have an ulcer, big polyps and colon cancer, esophageal cancer — we do those things really well. But I think because there’s no ICD-10 codes for preventive care via nutrition education, and no good reimbursement, then there’s no incentive for hospital systems to pay for these things. It’s a system based on RVUs (relative value units) and numbers. That’s been our trajectory. We’ve been so focused on reactionary medicine rather than saying, ‘Okay, let’s stop this from happening.’

We just didn’t talk about nutrition in medical school, in residency, or in fellowship. It was looked at as a soft science. When I was in school, people would also say, ‘No one’s going to change. So it’s a waste of your time essentially to talk to people about making dietary changes.’ I feel like if you give people the opportunity, you have to give them the chance. You can’t just write everybody off. Some people won’t change, but that’s okay. They should at least have the opportunity to do so.
 

Q: How do you determine whether a patient is a good candidate for bariatric surgery?

It’s based on the guidelines: If they meet the BMI requirements, if they have obesity-associated comorbidities, their risk for surgery is low. But it’s also whether they want to do it or not. A patient has to be in the mindset and be ready for it. They need to want to have surgery or bariatric endoscopy, or to use medications, or start to make a change. Some people aren’t there yet — that preemptive stage of making a change. They want the solution, but they’re not ready to do that legwork yet.

And all of it is work. I tell patients, ‘Whether it’s medication or bariatric endoscopy or bariatric surgery, you still have work to do. None of it is going to just magically happen where you could just continue to do the same thing you’re doing now and you’re going to lose weight and keep it off.’
 

Q: What advances in obesity prevention are you excited about?

I’m excited that bariatric endoscopy came about in the first place, because in every other field there are less invasive approaches that have become available. I’m also excited about the emergence of weight loss medication, like GLP-1s. I think they are a tool that we need.

Q: Do you think the weight loss medications may negate the need for surgery?

I don’t think they necessarily reduce the need for surgery. There’s still a lot we don’t know about why they work in some patients and why they don’t work in others.

Some of our colleagues have come up with phenotypes and blood tests so we can better understand which things will work in different patients. Surgery doesn’t work for some patients. People may need a combination of both after they reach a plateau. I’m excited that people see this as something that we should be researching and putting more effort into — that obesity isn’t a disease of moral failure, that people with excess weight just need to ‘move more’ or ‘eat less’ and it’s their fault. I’m glad people are starting to understand that.
 

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

Probably two. One of them is Andrea E Reid, MD, MPH, a dean of medicine at Harvard. She gives you such motivation to achieve things, no matter how big your idea is or how crazy it may seem. If you have something that you think is important, you go after it. Another person is Christopher C. Thompson, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the father of bariatric endoscopy in a sense. He embodies what Dr. Reid talks about: crazy big ideas. And he goes after them and he succeeds. Having him push me and giving me that type of encouragement was invaluable.

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

Every Saturday is yoga or some type of movement. Spending some time outside doing something, whether it’s messing around with plants that I’m not very good at, or going for a walk.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Text

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

New York

Favorite breakfast?

Avocado toast

Place you most want to travel to?

Istanbul

Favorite season?

Fall

Favorite ice cream flavor?

Raspberry sorbet

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

One

Best place you ever went on vacation?

Greece

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

Own a clothing store

Favorite type of music?

Old school R&B

Favorite movie genre?

Romantic comedy or drama

Cat person or dog person?

Dog

Favorite sport?

Football

Favorite holiday?

Christmas

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Stigma around obesity can have a crippling effect on patients. Janese Laster, MD, sees the impact of this problem every day.

It takes a long time for some patients with obesity to acknowledge that they need help, said Dr. Laster, a bariatric endoscopist who specializes in gastroenterology, nutrition, and obesity medicine at Gut Theory Total Digestive Care, and Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “If somebody has high blood pressure or has a cut or has chest pain, you don’t wait for things. You would go seek help immediately. I wish more patients reached out sooner and didn’t struggle.”

Courtesy Dr. Janese Laster

Another big challenge is making sure patients have insurance coverage for things like medications, surgery, and bariatric endoscopy, she added.

Her response: education and advocacy. “I’m giving as many talks as I can to fellows, creating courses for residents and fellows and medical students” to change the way physicians talk about obesity and excess weight, she said. Patients need to understand that physicians care about them, that “we’re not judging and we’re changing that perspective.”

Dr. Laster is also working with members of Congress to get bills passed for coverage of obesity medication and procedures. In an interview with GI & Hepatology News, she spoke more about the intersection between nutrition, medicine and bariatric procedures and the importance of offering patients multiple solutions.
 

Q: Why did you choose GI? 

It allowed me a little bit of everything. You have clinic, where you can really interact with patients and get to the root of their problem. You have preventative care with routine colonoscopies and upper endoscopies to prevent for cancer. But then you also have fun stuff — which my mom told me to stop saying out loud — ‘bleeders’ and acute things that you get to fix immediately. So, you get the adrenaline rush too. I like it because you get the best of all worlds and it’s really hard to get bored.

Q: How did you become interested in nutrition and bariatric endoscopy?

My parents had a garden and never let us eat processed foods. In residency, I kept seeing the same medical problems over and over again. Everybody had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes. Then in GI clinic, everybody had abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, heartburn, and a million GI appointments for these same things. Everyone’s upper endoscopy or colonoscopy was negative. Something else had to be going on.

And that’s sort of where it came from; figuring out the common denominator. It had to be what people were eating. There’s also the prevalence of patients with obesity going up every single year. Correlating all these other medical problems with people’s diets led me down the rabbit hole of: What else can we be doing?

Most people don’t want to undergo surgery. Only 2% of people eligible for surgery actually do it, even though it works. The reasons are because it’s invasive or there’s shame behind it. Bariatric endoscopy is another option that’s out here, that’s less invasive. I’m an endoscopist and gastroenterologist. I should be able to offer all those things and I should know more about nutrition. We don’t talk about it enough.
 

Q: Do you think more GI doctors should become better educated about nutrition?

100%. Every patient I see has seen a GI doctor before and says, ‘No one has ever told me that if I have carbonated beverages and cheese every day, I’m going to be bloated and constipated.’ And that shouldn’t be the case.

Q: Why do you think that more GI doctors don’t get the education on nutrition during their medical training?

I think it’s our healthcare system. It’s very much focused on secondary treatment rather than preventative care. There’s no emphasis on preventing things from happening.

We’re really good at reactionary medicine. People who have an ulcer, big polyps and colon cancer, esophageal cancer — we do those things really well. But I think because there’s no ICD-10 codes for preventive care via nutrition education, and no good reimbursement, then there’s no incentive for hospital systems to pay for these things. It’s a system based on RVUs (relative value units) and numbers. That’s been our trajectory. We’ve been so focused on reactionary medicine rather than saying, ‘Okay, let’s stop this from happening.’

We just didn’t talk about nutrition in medical school, in residency, or in fellowship. It was looked at as a soft science. When I was in school, people would also say, ‘No one’s going to change. So it’s a waste of your time essentially to talk to people about making dietary changes.’ I feel like if you give people the opportunity, you have to give them the chance. You can’t just write everybody off. Some people won’t change, but that’s okay. They should at least have the opportunity to do so.
 

Q: How do you determine whether a patient is a good candidate for bariatric surgery?

It’s based on the guidelines: If they meet the BMI requirements, if they have obesity-associated comorbidities, their risk for surgery is low. But it’s also whether they want to do it or not. A patient has to be in the mindset and be ready for it. They need to want to have surgery or bariatric endoscopy, or to use medications, or start to make a change. Some people aren’t there yet — that preemptive stage of making a change. They want the solution, but they’re not ready to do that legwork yet.

And all of it is work. I tell patients, ‘Whether it’s medication or bariatric endoscopy or bariatric surgery, you still have work to do. None of it is going to just magically happen where you could just continue to do the same thing you’re doing now and you’re going to lose weight and keep it off.’
 

Q: What advances in obesity prevention are you excited about?

I’m excited that bariatric endoscopy came about in the first place, because in every other field there are less invasive approaches that have become available. I’m also excited about the emergence of weight loss medication, like GLP-1s. I think they are a tool that we need.

Q: Do you think the weight loss medications may negate the need for surgery?

I don’t think they necessarily reduce the need for surgery. There’s still a lot we don’t know about why they work in some patients and why they don’t work in others.

Some of our colleagues have come up with phenotypes and blood tests so we can better understand which things will work in different patients. Surgery doesn’t work for some patients. People may need a combination of both after they reach a plateau. I’m excited that people see this as something that we should be researching and putting more effort into — that obesity isn’t a disease of moral failure, that people with excess weight just need to ‘move more’ or ‘eat less’ and it’s their fault. I’m glad people are starting to understand that.
 

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

Probably two. One of them is Andrea E Reid, MD, MPH, a dean of medicine at Harvard. She gives you such motivation to achieve things, no matter how big your idea is or how crazy it may seem. If you have something that you think is important, you go after it. Another person is Christopher C. Thompson, MD, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the father of bariatric endoscopy in a sense. He embodies what Dr. Reid talks about: crazy big ideas. And he goes after them and he succeeds. Having him push me and giving me that type of encouragement was invaluable.

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

Every Saturday is yoga or some type of movement. Spending some time outside doing something, whether it’s messing around with plants that I’m not very good at, or going for a walk.

Lightning Round

Texting or talking?

Text

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

New York

Favorite breakfast?

Avocado toast

Place you most want to travel to?

Istanbul

Favorite season?

Fall

Favorite ice cream flavor?

Raspberry sorbet

How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?

One

Best place you ever went on vacation?

Greece

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

Own a clothing store

Favorite type of music?

Old school R&B

Favorite movie genre?

Romantic comedy or drama

Cat person or dog person?

Dog

Favorite sport?

Football

Favorite holiday?

Christmas

Optimist or pessimist?

Optimist

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain extraintestinal manifestations (EIMs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have distinct clinical, serologic, and genetic associations that reveal underlying mechanisms and indicate targets for new or existing drugs, according to a recent study.

For instance, antinuclear cytoplastic antibody is associated with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in Crohn’s disease, and CPEB4 genetic variation is associated with skin manifestations.

“Up to 40% of people with IBD suffer with symptoms from inflammation that occurs outside the gut, particularly affecting the liver, skin, and joints. These symptoms can often have a bigger impact on quality of life than the gut inflammation itself and can actually be life-threatening,” said senior author Dermot McGovern, MD, PhD, AGAF, director of translational medicine at the F. Widjaja Foundation Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Immunobiology Research Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

“With the advances in therapies for IBD, including availability of gut-selective agents, treatment choices often incorporate whether a patient has one of these manifestations or not,” he said. “We need to understand who is at increased risk of these and why.”

The study was published in Gastroenterology .
 

Analyzing Associations

Dr. McGovern and colleagues analyzed data for 12,083 unrelated European ancestry IBD cases with presence or absence of EIMs across four cohorts in the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center IBD Research Repository, National Institute for Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases IBD Genetics Consortium, Sinai Helmsley Alliance for Research Excellence Consortium, and Risk Stratification and Identification of Immunogenetic and Microbial Markers of Rapid Disease Progression in Children with Crohn’s Disease.

In particular, the researchers looked at EIM phenotypes such as ankylosing spondylitis and sacroiliitis, PSC, peripheral arthritis, and skin and ocular manifestations. They analyzed clinical and serologic parameters through regression analyses using a mixed-effects model, as well as within-case logistic regression for genetic associations.

Overall, 14% of patients had at least one EIM. Contrary to previous reports, only 2% had multiple EIMs, and most co-occurrences were negatively correlated. Nearly all EIMs were more common in Crohn’s disease, except for PSC, which was more common in ulcerative colitis.

In general, EIMs occurred more often in women, particularly with Crohn’s disease and colonic disease location, and in patients who required surgery. Jewish ancestry was associated with psoriasis and overall skin manifestations.

Smoking increased the risk for multiple EIMs, except for PSC, where there appeared to be a “protective” effect. Older age at diagnosis and a family history of IBD were associated with increased risk for certain EIMs as well.

In addition, the research team noted multiple serologic associations, such as immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgA, perinuclear antinuclear cytoplastic antibodies, and anti–Pseudomonas fluorescens–associated sequences with any EIM, as well as particular associations with PSC, such as anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibodies and anti-flagellin.

There were also genome-wide significant associations within the major histocompatibility complex and CPEB4. Genetic associations implicated tumor necrosis factor, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription, and interleukin 6 as potential targets for EIMs.

“We are working with colleagues across the world to increase the sample size, as we believe there is more to find,” Dr. McGovern said. “Importantly, this includes non-European ancestry subjects, as there is an urgent need to increase the diversity of populations we study so advances in clinical care are available to all communities.”
 

Considering Target Therapies

As medicine becomes more specialized, physicians should remember to consider the whole patient while choosing treatment strategies.

“Sometimes doctors wear blinders to the whole person, and it’s important to be aware of a holistic approach, where a gastroenterologist also asks about potential joint inflammation or a rheumatologist asks about bowel inflammation,” said David Rubin, MD, AGAF, chief of the Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition at the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago.

Dr. Rubin, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched and published on EIMs in IBD. He and colleagues analyzed the prevalence, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of EIMs to better understand possibilities for disease management.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a significant global health concern, accounting for approximately 5% of all disease and injury. In the United States, the prevalence of ALD has increased since 2014, and the trajectory accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ALD encompasses a spectrum of diseases that includes steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as related complications. Although earlier stages of ALD may be asymptomatic, hepatologists and gastroenterologists rarely see patients at this point.

“Unfortunately, patients with ALD more often present in late stages of disease (decompensated cirrhosis) as compared with other chronic liver diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease or hepatitis C,” Doug A. Simonetto, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellowship Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

Recent data have identified three demographic groups experiencing higher rates of ALD relative to previous periods and who may therefore require special attention. Understanding what makes these groups increasingly susceptible to ALD may allow for improved screening, earlier diagnosis, and potentially the prevention of its most dire consequences.
 

As Women Consume More Alcohol, ALD Follows

Historically, men have had higher rates of alcohol use, heavy drinking, and alcohol disorders than women. But this gender gap has begun to narrow.

Men born in the early 1900s were 2.2 times more likely to drink alcohol and 3.6 times more likely to experience alcohol-related harms than women, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. By the end of the 1990s, however, women’s drinking had begun to catch up. Men still led in these categories, but only by 1.1 and 1.3 times, respectively.

Rates of binge drinking (defined as at least five drinks in men or at least four drinks in women in an approximately 2-hour period) are also converging between the sexes. The authors of a longitudinal analysis hypothesized that an uptick in young women reporting drinking for social reasons — from 53% in 1987 to 87% in 2020 — was a possible cause.

Greater alcohol consumption among women has translated into higher rates of ALD. Analyzing data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, which looked at hundreds of diseases across 204 countries and territories, researchers reported that the worldwide prevalence of ALD among young women (15-49 years) rose within the past decade. Those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group had the most significant increases in ALD prevalence rates.

Recent US statistics highlight the relative imbalance in ALD’s impact on women, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“The age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-associated liver cirrhosis increased by 47% between 2000 and 2019, with larger increases for females than for males (83.5% compared to 33%),” Dr. Koob told this news organization. “Larger increases for women are consistent with a general increase in alcohol use among adult women and larger increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Physiologically, women have a higher risk than men of developing ALD and more severe disease, even at lower levels of alcohol exposure. According to a 2021 review, several proposed mechanisms might play a role, including differences in alcohol metabolism and first-pass metabolism, hormones, and endotoxin and Kupffer cell activation.

Crucially, women are less likely than men to receive in-person therapy or approved medications for alcohol use disorder, according to a 2019 analysis of over 66,000 privately insured adult patients.
 

Certain Ethnic, Racial Minorities Have Higher Rates of ALD

In the United States, rates of ALD and associated complications are higher among certain minority groups, most prominently Hispanic and Native American individuals.

A 2021 analysis of three large US databases found that Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 17% increased risk for acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with ALD-related admissions.

Data also show that Hispanic and White patients have a higher proportion of alcoholic hepatitis than African American patients. And for Hispanic patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis, they incur significantly more total hospital costs despite having similar mortality rates as White patients.

ALD-related mortality appears higher within certain subgroups of Hispanic patient populations. NIAAA surveillance reports track deaths resulting from cirrhosis in the White, Black, and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, these statistics show that although death rates from cirrhosis decreased for Hispanic White men, they increased for Hispanic White women, Dr. Koob said.

The latest data show that Native American populations are experiencing ALD at relatively higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups as well. An analysis of nearly 200,000 cirrhosis-related hospitalizations found that ALD, including alcoholic hepatitis, was the most common etiology in American Indian/Alaska Native patients. A separate analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database revealed that discharges resulting from ALD were disproportionately higher among Native American women.

As with Hispanic populations, ALD-associated mortality rates are also higher in Native American populations. The death rate from ALD increased for all racial and ethnic groups by 23.4% from 2019 to 2020, but the biggest increase occurred in the American Indian or Alaska Native populations (34.3% increase, from 20.1 to 27 per 100,000 people). Additionally, over the first two decades of the 21st century, mortality rates resulting from cirrhosis were highest among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, according to a recently published systematic analysis of US health disparities across five racial/ethnic groups.

Discrepancies in these and other minority groups may be due partly to genetic mechanisms, such as the relatively higher frequency of the PNPLA3 G/G polymorphism, a known risk factor for the development of advanced ALD, among those with Native American ancestry. A host of complex socioeconomic factors, such as income discrepancies and access to care, likely contribute too.

Evidence suggests that alcohol screening interventions are not applied equally across various racial and ethnic groups, Dr. Koob noted.

“For instance, Subbaraman and colleagues reported that, compared to non-Hispanic White patients, those who identify as Hispanic, Black, or other race or ethnicity were less likely to be screened for alcohol use during visits to healthcare providers. This was particularly true for those with a high school education or less,” he told this news organization. “However, other studies have not found such disparities.”
 

ALD Rates High in Young Adults, but the Tide May Be Changing

Globally, the prevalence of ALD has increased among both adolescents and young adults since the beginning of the 21st century. The global incidence of alcohol-associated hepatitis in recent years has been greatest among those aged 15-44 years.

In the United States, the increasing rate of ALD-related hospitalizations is primarily driven by the rise in cases of alcoholic hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure among those aged 35 years and younger.

ALD is now the most common indication for liver transplant in those younger than 40 years of age, having increased fourfold between 2003 and 2018.

From 2009 to 2016, people aged 25-34 years experienced the highest average annual increase in cirrhosis-related mortality (10.5%), a trend the authors noted was “driven entirely by alcohol-related liver disease.”

Younger adults may be more susceptible to ALD due to the way they drink.

In a 2021 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, the weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 29.3% in those younger than 35 years, compared with 16.9% in those aged 35-64 years. Higher blood alcohol levels resulting from binge drinking may make patients more susceptible to bacterial translocation and liver fibrosis and can increase the likelihood of cirrhosis in those with an underlying metabolic syndrome.

Yet, Dr. Koob said, thinking of “young adults” as one cohort may be misguided because he’s found very different attitudes toward alcohol within that population. Cross-sectional survey data obtained from more than 180,000 young adults indicated that alcohol abstinence increased between 2002 and 2018. Young adults report various reasons for not drinking, ranging from lack of interest to financial and situational barriers (eg, not wanting to interfere with school or work).

“The tide is coming in and out at the same time,” he said. “Younger people under the age of 25 are drinking less each year, are increasingly interested in things like Dry January, and more than half view moderate levels of consumption as unhealthy. People who are 26 years and older are drinking more, are not as interested in cutting back or taking breaks, and are less likely to consider 1 or 2 drinks per day as potentially unhealthy.”

Dr. Koob would like to believe the positive trends around alcohol in the under-25 set prove not only resilient, but someday, dominant.

“We have seen historic increases in alcohol consumption in the last few years — the largest increases in more than 50 years. But we are hopeful that, as the younger cohorts age, we will see lower levels of drinking by adults in mid-life and beyond.”
 

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

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a significant global health concern, accounting for approximately 5% of all disease and injury. In the United States, the prevalence of ALD has increased since 2014, and the trajectory accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ALD encompasses a spectrum of diseases that includes steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as related complications. Although earlier stages of ALD may be asymptomatic, hepatologists and gastroenterologists rarely see patients at this point.

“Unfortunately, patients with ALD more often present in late stages of disease (decompensated cirrhosis) as compared with other chronic liver diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease or hepatitis C,” Doug A. Simonetto, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellowship Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

Recent data have identified three demographic groups experiencing higher rates of ALD relative to previous periods and who may therefore require special attention. Understanding what makes these groups increasingly susceptible to ALD may allow for improved screening, earlier diagnosis, and potentially the prevention of its most dire consequences.
 

As Women Consume More Alcohol, ALD Follows

Historically, men have had higher rates of alcohol use, heavy drinking, and alcohol disorders than women. But this gender gap has begun to narrow.

Men born in the early 1900s were 2.2 times more likely to drink alcohol and 3.6 times more likely to experience alcohol-related harms than women, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. By the end of the 1990s, however, women’s drinking had begun to catch up. Men still led in these categories, but only by 1.1 and 1.3 times, respectively.

Rates of binge drinking (defined as at least five drinks in men or at least four drinks in women in an approximately 2-hour period) are also converging between the sexes. The authors of a longitudinal analysis hypothesized that an uptick in young women reporting drinking for social reasons — from 53% in 1987 to 87% in 2020 — was a possible cause.

Greater alcohol consumption among women has translated into higher rates of ALD. Analyzing data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, which looked at hundreds of diseases across 204 countries and territories, researchers reported that the worldwide prevalence of ALD among young women (15-49 years) rose within the past decade. Those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group had the most significant increases in ALD prevalence rates.

Recent US statistics highlight the relative imbalance in ALD’s impact on women, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“The age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-associated liver cirrhosis increased by 47% between 2000 and 2019, with larger increases for females than for males (83.5% compared to 33%),” Dr. Koob told this news organization. “Larger increases for women are consistent with a general increase in alcohol use among adult women and larger increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Physiologically, women have a higher risk than men of developing ALD and more severe disease, even at lower levels of alcohol exposure. According to a 2021 review, several proposed mechanisms might play a role, including differences in alcohol metabolism and first-pass metabolism, hormones, and endotoxin and Kupffer cell activation.

Crucially, women are less likely than men to receive in-person therapy or approved medications for alcohol use disorder, according to a 2019 analysis of over 66,000 privately insured adult patients.
 

Certain Ethnic, Racial Minorities Have Higher Rates of ALD

In the United States, rates of ALD and associated complications are higher among certain minority groups, most prominently Hispanic and Native American individuals.

A 2021 analysis of three large US databases found that Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 17% increased risk for acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with ALD-related admissions.

Data also show that Hispanic and White patients have a higher proportion of alcoholic hepatitis than African American patients. And for Hispanic patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis, they incur significantly more total hospital costs despite having similar mortality rates as White patients.

ALD-related mortality appears higher within certain subgroups of Hispanic patient populations. NIAAA surveillance reports track deaths resulting from cirrhosis in the White, Black, and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, these statistics show that although death rates from cirrhosis decreased for Hispanic White men, they increased for Hispanic White women, Dr. Koob said.

The latest data show that Native American populations are experiencing ALD at relatively higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups as well. An analysis of nearly 200,000 cirrhosis-related hospitalizations found that ALD, including alcoholic hepatitis, was the most common etiology in American Indian/Alaska Native patients. A separate analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database revealed that discharges resulting from ALD were disproportionately higher among Native American women.

As with Hispanic populations, ALD-associated mortality rates are also higher in Native American populations. The death rate from ALD increased for all racial and ethnic groups by 23.4% from 2019 to 2020, but the biggest increase occurred in the American Indian or Alaska Native populations (34.3% increase, from 20.1 to 27 per 100,000 people). Additionally, over the first two decades of the 21st century, mortality rates resulting from cirrhosis were highest among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, according to a recently published systematic analysis of US health disparities across five racial/ethnic groups.

Discrepancies in these and other minority groups may be due partly to genetic mechanisms, such as the relatively higher frequency of the PNPLA3 G/G polymorphism, a known risk factor for the development of advanced ALD, among those with Native American ancestry. A host of complex socioeconomic factors, such as income discrepancies and access to care, likely contribute too.

Evidence suggests that alcohol screening interventions are not applied equally across various racial and ethnic groups, Dr. Koob noted.

“For instance, Subbaraman and colleagues reported that, compared to non-Hispanic White patients, those who identify as Hispanic, Black, or other race or ethnicity were less likely to be screened for alcohol use during visits to healthcare providers. This was particularly true for those with a high school education or less,” he told this news organization. “However, other studies have not found such disparities.”
 

ALD Rates High in Young Adults, but the Tide May Be Changing

Globally, the prevalence of ALD has increased among both adolescents and young adults since the beginning of the 21st century. The global incidence of alcohol-associated hepatitis in recent years has been greatest among those aged 15-44 years.

In the United States, the increasing rate of ALD-related hospitalizations is primarily driven by the rise in cases of alcoholic hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure among those aged 35 years and younger.

ALD is now the most common indication for liver transplant in those younger than 40 years of age, having increased fourfold between 2003 and 2018.

From 2009 to 2016, people aged 25-34 years experienced the highest average annual increase in cirrhosis-related mortality (10.5%), a trend the authors noted was “driven entirely by alcohol-related liver disease.”

Younger adults may be more susceptible to ALD due to the way they drink.

In a 2021 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, the weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 29.3% in those younger than 35 years, compared with 16.9% in those aged 35-64 years. Higher blood alcohol levels resulting from binge drinking may make patients more susceptible to bacterial translocation and liver fibrosis and can increase the likelihood of cirrhosis in those with an underlying metabolic syndrome.

Yet, Dr. Koob said, thinking of “young adults” as one cohort may be misguided because he’s found very different attitudes toward alcohol within that population. Cross-sectional survey data obtained from more than 180,000 young adults indicated that alcohol abstinence increased between 2002 and 2018. Young adults report various reasons for not drinking, ranging from lack of interest to financial and situational barriers (eg, not wanting to interfere with school or work).

“The tide is coming in and out at the same time,” he said. “Younger people under the age of 25 are drinking less each year, are increasingly interested in things like Dry January, and more than half view moderate levels of consumption as unhealthy. People who are 26 years and older are drinking more, are not as interested in cutting back or taking breaks, and are less likely to consider 1 or 2 drinks per day as potentially unhealthy.”

Dr. Koob would like to believe the positive trends around alcohol in the under-25 set prove not only resilient, but someday, dominant.

“We have seen historic increases in alcohol consumption in the last few years — the largest increases in more than 50 years. But we are hopeful that, as the younger cohorts age, we will see lower levels of drinking by adults in mid-life and beyond.”
 

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

Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) is a significant global health concern, accounting for approximately 5% of all disease and injury. In the United States, the prevalence of ALD has increased since 2014, and the trajectory accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ALD encompasses a spectrum of diseases that includes steatosis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as related complications. Although earlier stages of ALD may be asymptomatic, hepatologists and gastroenterologists rarely see patients at this point.

“Unfortunately, patients with ALD more often present in late stages of disease (decompensated cirrhosis) as compared with other chronic liver diseases, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease or hepatitis C,” Doug A. Simonetto, MD, associate professor of medicine and director of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellowship Program at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, told this news organization.

Recent data have identified three demographic groups experiencing higher rates of ALD relative to previous periods and who may therefore require special attention. Understanding what makes these groups increasingly susceptible to ALD may allow for improved screening, earlier diagnosis, and potentially the prevention of its most dire consequences.
 

As Women Consume More Alcohol, ALD Follows

Historically, men have had higher rates of alcohol use, heavy drinking, and alcohol disorders than women. But this gender gap has begun to narrow.

Men born in the early 1900s were 2.2 times more likely to drink alcohol and 3.6 times more likely to experience alcohol-related harms than women, according to a 2016 meta-analysis. By the end of the 1990s, however, women’s drinking had begun to catch up. Men still led in these categories, but only by 1.1 and 1.3 times, respectively.

Rates of binge drinking (defined as at least five drinks in men or at least four drinks in women in an approximately 2-hour period) are also converging between the sexes. The authors of a longitudinal analysis hypothesized that an uptick in young women reporting drinking for social reasons — from 53% in 1987 to 87% in 2020 — was a possible cause.

Greater alcohol consumption among women has translated into higher rates of ALD. Analyzing data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, which looked at hundreds of diseases across 204 countries and territories, researchers reported that the worldwide prevalence of ALD among young women (15-49 years) rose within the past decade. Those in the 20- to 24-year-old age group had the most significant increases in ALD prevalence rates.

Recent US statistics highlight the relative imbalance in ALD’s impact on women, according to George F. Koob, PhD, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

“The age-adjusted death rate from alcohol-associated liver cirrhosis increased by 47% between 2000 and 2019, with larger increases for females than for males (83.5% compared to 33%),” Dr. Koob told this news organization. “Larger increases for women are consistent with a general increase in alcohol use among adult women and larger increases in alcohol-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths.”

Physiologically, women have a higher risk than men of developing ALD and more severe disease, even at lower levels of alcohol exposure. According to a 2021 review, several proposed mechanisms might play a role, including differences in alcohol metabolism and first-pass metabolism, hormones, and endotoxin and Kupffer cell activation.

Crucially, women are less likely than men to receive in-person therapy or approved medications for alcohol use disorder, according to a 2019 analysis of over 66,000 privately insured adult patients.
 

Certain Ethnic, Racial Minorities Have Higher Rates of ALD

In the United States, rates of ALD and associated complications are higher among certain minority groups, most prominently Hispanic and Native American individuals.

A 2021 analysis of three large US databases found that Hispanic ethnicity was associated with a 17% increased risk for acute-on-chronic liver failure in patients with ALD-related admissions.

Data also show that Hispanic and White patients have a higher proportion of alcoholic hepatitis than African American patients. And for Hispanic patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis, they incur significantly more total hospital costs despite having similar mortality rates as White patients.

ALD-related mortality appears higher within certain subgroups of Hispanic patient populations. NIAAA surveillance reports track deaths resulting from cirrhosis in the White, Black, and Hispanic populations. From 2000 to 2019, these statistics show that although death rates from cirrhosis decreased for Hispanic White men, they increased for Hispanic White women, Dr. Koob said.

The latest data show that Native American populations are experiencing ALD at relatively higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups as well. An analysis of nearly 200,000 cirrhosis-related hospitalizations found that ALD, including alcoholic hepatitis, was the most common etiology in American Indian/Alaska Native patients. A separate analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database revealed that discharges resulting from ALD were disproportionately higher among Native American women.

As with Hispanic populations, ALD-associated mortality rates are also higher in Native American populations. The death rate from ALD increased for all racial and ethnic groups by 23.4% from 2019 to 2020, but the biggest increase occurred in the American Indian or Alaska Native populations (34.3% increase, from 20.1 to 27 per 100,000 people). Additionally, over the first two decades of the 21st century, mortality rates resulting from cirrhosis were highest among the American Indian and Alaska Native populations, according to a recently published systematic analysis of US health disparities across five racial/ethnic groups.

Discrepancies in these and other minority groups may be due partly to genetic mechanisms, such as the relatively higher frequency of the PNPLA3 G/G polymorphism, a known risk factor for the development of advanced ALD, among those with Native American ancestry. A host of complex socioeconomic factors, such as income discrepancies and access to care, likely contribute too.

Evidence suggests that alcohol screening interventions are not applied equally across various racial and ethnic groups, Dr. Koob noted.

“For instance, Subbaraman and colleagues reported that, compared to non-Hispanic White patients, those who identify as Hispanic, Black, or other race or ethnicity were less likely to be screened for alcohol use during visits to healthcare providers. This was particularly true for those with a high school education or less,” he told this news organization. “However, other studies have not found such disparities.”
 

ALD Rates High in Young Adults, but the Tide May Be Changing

Globally, the prevalence of ALD has increased among both adolescents and young adults since the beginning of the 21st century. The global incidence of alcohol-associated hepatitis in recent years has been greatest among those aged 15-44 years.

In the United States, the increasing rate of ALD-related hospitalizations is primarily driven by the rise in cases of alcoholic hepatitis and acute-on-chronic liver failure among those aged 35 years and younger.

ALD is now the most common indication for liver transplant in those younger than 40 years of age, having increased fourfold between 2003 and 2018.

From 2009 to 2016, people aged 25-34 years experienced the highest average annual increase in cirrhosis-related mortality (10.5%), a trend the authors noted was “driven entirely by alcohol-related liver disease.”

Younger adults may be more susceptible to ALD due to the way they drink.

In a 2021 analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database, the weighted prevalence of harmful alcohol use was 29.3% in those younger than 35 years, compared with 16.9% in those aged 35-64 years. Higher blood alcohol levels resulting from binge drinking may make patients more susceptible to bacterial translocation and liver fibrosis and can increase the likelihood of cirrhosis in those with an underlying metabolic syndrome.

Yet, Dr. Koob said, thinking of “young adults” as one cohort may be misguided because he’s found very different attitudes toward alcohol within that population. Cross-sectional survey data obtained from more than 180,000 young adults indicated that alcohol abstinence increased between 2002 and 2018. Young adults report various reasons for not drinking, ranging from lack of interest to financial and situational barriers (eg, not wanting to interfere with school or work).

“The tide is coming in and out at the same time,” he said. “Younger people under the age of 25 are drinking less each year, are increasingly interested in things like Dry January, and more than half view moderate levels of consumption as unhealthy. People who are 26 years and older are drinking more, are not as interested in cutting back or taking breaks, and are less likely to consider 1 or 2 drinks per day as potentially unhealthy.”

Dr. Koob would like to believe the positive trends around alcohol in the under-25 set prove not only resilient, but someday, dominant.

“We have seen historic increases in alcohol consumption in the last few years — the largest increases in more than 50 years. But we are hopeful that, as the younger cohorts age, we will see lower levels of drinking by adults in mid-life and beyond.”
 

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