TBD Meeting (3042-19)

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide with high mortality and morbidity and an estimated 952,000 cases reported globally in 2012.

In the United States, gastric cancer accounts for 1.6% of all cancers with an estimated 27,510 cases in 2019 per the SEER database. Although the incidence of gastric cancer has been decreasing in the United States, there have been alarming trends, suggesting an increased rate in select populations, especially in the young Hispanic population in the age group of 20-49 years (SEER Cancer Statistics Review [CSR] 1975-2015).

Risk factors for gastric cancer include increasing age, male sex, presence of intestinal metaplasia, and varying degrees of dysplasia (Endoscopy. 2019;51[4]:365-88). Gastric cancer is primarily characterized into two subtypes: intestinal type, which is the more common type associated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), and the diffuse type, which is genetically determined.

GIM, a precancerous lesion, is defined as the replacement of the normal gastric mucosa by intestinal epithelium and can be limited (confined to one region of the stomach) or extensive (involving more than two regions of the stomach). Risk factors for GIM include Helicobacter pylori infection, age, smoking status, and presence of a first-degree relative with gastric cancer. Histologically, GIM is characterized as either complete – defined as the presence of small intestinal-type mucosa with mature absorptive cells, goblet cells, and a brush border – or incomplete – with columnar “intermediate” cells in various stages of differentiation, irregular mucin droplets, without a brush border. Extensive and incomplete type of GIM is associated with a higher risk of gastric cancer (Endoscopy. 2019;51[4]:365-88).

Gastric cancer screening has been shown to be effective in countries with a high incidence of gastric cancer. However, in low-incidence countries, at-risk patients can be identified based on epidemiology, genetics, and environmental risk factors as well as incidence of H. pylori, and serologic markers of chronic inflammation such as pepsinogen, and gastrin (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112[5]:704-15). H. pylori eradication has been shown to reduce the risk of developing gastric adenocarcinoma in patients with H. pylori-associated GIM. For detection of dysplasia and early gastric cancer, patients with GIM should undergo a full systematic endoscopy protocol of the stomach with clear photographic documentation of gastric regions and pathology.

On standard white-light endoscopy, GIM appears as small gray-white, slightly elevated plaques surrounded by mixed patchy pink and pale areas of mucosa causing an irregular uneven surface. Sometimes GIM can present as patchy erythema with mottling.

On the other hand, presence of features such as differences in color, loss of vascularity, elevation or depression, nodularity or thickening, and abnormal convergence or flattening of folds should raise suspicion for gastric dysplasia or early gastric cancer. Presence of GIM on endoscopy should be documented in detail with photographic evidence including the location and extent of GIM, and obtaining mapping biopsies that include at least two biopsies from the antrum (from lesser and greater curve) and from the body (lesser and greater curve). Endoscopic surveillance is recommended every 3 years in patients with extensive GIM affecting the antrum and body, incomplete GIM, and a family history of gastric cancer.
 

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Sharma is professor of medicine and director of fellowship training, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Kansas, Kansas City.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide with high mortality and morbidity and an estimated 952,000 cases reported globally in 2012.

In the United States, gastric cancer accounts for 1.6% of all cancers with an estimated 27,510 cases in 2019 per the SEER database. Although the incidence of gastric cancer has been decreasing in the United States, there have been alarming trends, suggesting an increased rate in select populations, especially in the young Hispanic population in the age group of 20-49 years (SEER Cancer Statistics Review [CSR] 1975-2015).

Risk factors for gastric cancer include increasing age, male sex, presence of intestinal metaplasia, and varying degrees of dysplasia (Endoscopy. 2019;51[4]:365-88). Gastric cancer is primarily characterized into two subtypes: intestinal type, which is the more common type associated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), and the diffuse type, which is genetically determined.

GIM, a precancerous lesion, is defined as the replacement of the normal gastric mucosa by intestinal epithelium and can be limited (confined to one region of the stomach) or extensive (involving more than two regions of the stomach). Risk factors for GIM include Helicobacter pylori infection, age, smoking status, and presence of a first-degree relative with gastric cancer. Histologically, GIM is characterized as either complete – defined as the presence of small intestinal-type mucosa with mature absorptive cells, goblet cells, and a brush border – or incomplete – with columnar “intermediate” cells in various stages of differentiation, irregular mucin droplets, without a brush border. Extensive and incomplete type of GIM is associated with a higher risk of gastric cancer (Endoscopy. 2019;51[4]:365-88).

Gastric cancer screening has been shown to be effective in countries with a high incidence of gastric cancer. However, in low-incidence countries, at-risk patients can be identified based on epidemiology, genetics, and environmental risk factors as well as incidence of H. pylori, and serologic markers of chronic inflammation such as pepsinogen, and gastrin (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112[5]:704-15). H. pylori eradication has been shown to reduce the risk of developing gastric adenocarcinoma in patients with H. pylori-associated GIM. For detection of dysplasia and early gastric cancer, patients with GIM should undergo a full systematic endoscopy protocol of the stomach with clear photographic documentation of gastric regions and pathology.

On standard white-light endoscopy, GIM appears as small gray-white, slightly elevated plaques surrounded by mixed patchy pink and pale areas of mucosa causing an irregular uneven surface. Sometimes GIM can present as patchy erythema with mottling.

On the other hand, presence of features such as differences in color, loss of vascularity, elevation or depression, nodularity or thickening, and abnormal convergence or flattening of folds should raise suspicion for gastric dysplasia or early gastric cancer. Presence of GIM on endoscopy should be documented in detail with photographic evidence including the location and extent of GIM, and obtaining mapping biopsies that include at least two biopsies from the antrum (from lesser and greater curve) and from the body (lesser and greater curve). Endoscopic surveillance is recommended every 3 years in patients with extensive GIM affecting the antrum and body, incomplete GIM, and a family history of gastric cancer.
 

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Sharma is professor of medicine and director of fellowship training, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Kansas, Kansas City.

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide with high mortality and morbidity and an estimated 952,000 cases reported globally in 2012.

In the United States, gastric cancer accounts for 1.6% of all cancers with an estimated 27,510 cases in 2019 per the SEER database. Although the incidence of gastric cancer has been decreasing in the United States, there have been alarming trends, suggesting an increased rate in select populations, especially in the young Hispanic population in the age group of 20-49 years (SEER Cancer Statistics Review [CSR] 1975-2015).

Risk factors for gastric cancer include increasing age, male sex, presence of intestinal metaplasia, and varying degrees of dysplasia (Endoscopy. 2019;51[4]:365-88). Gastric cancer is primarily characterized into two subtypes: intestinal type, which is the more common type associated with gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), and the diffuse type, which is genetically determined.

GIM, a precancerous lesion, is defined as the replacement of the normal gastric mucosa by intestinal epithelium and can be limited (confined to one region of the stomach) or extensive (involving more than two regions of the stomach). Risk factors for GIM include Helicobacter pylori infection, age, smoking status, and presence of a first-degree relative with gastric cancer. Histologically, GIM is characterized as either complete – defined as the presence of small intestinal-type mucosa with mature absorptive cells, goblet cells, and a brush border – or incomplete – with columnar “intermediate” cells in various stages of differentiation, irregular mucin droplets, without a brush border. Extensive and incomplete type of GIM is associated with a higher risk of gastric cancer (Endoscopy. 2019;51[4]:365-88).

Gastric cancer screening has been shown to be effective in countries with a high incidence of gastric cancer. However, in low-incidence countries, at-risk patients can be identified based on epidemiology, genetics, and environmental risk factors as well as incidence of H. pylori, and serologic markers of chronic inflammation such as pepsinogen, and gastrin (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112[5]:704-15). H. pylori eradication has been shown to reduce the risk of developing gastric adenocarcinoma in patients with H. pylori-associated GIM. For detection of dysplasia and early gastric cancer, patients with GIM should undergo a full systematic endoscopy protocol of the stomach with clear photographic documentation of gastric regions and pathology.

On standard white-light endoscopy, GIM appears as small gray-white, slightly elevated plaques surrounded by mixed patchy pink and pale areas of mucosa causing an irregular uneven surface. Sometimes GIM can present as patchy erythema with mottling.

On the other hand, presence of features such as differences in color, loss of vascularity, elevation or depression, nodularity or thickening, and abnormal convergence or flattening of folds should raise suspicion for gastric dysplasia or early gastric cancer. Presence of GIM on endoscopy should be documented in detail with photographic evidence including the location and extent of GIM, and obtaining mapping biopsies that include at least two biopsies from the antrum (from lesser and greater curve) and from the body (lesser and greater curve). Endoscopic surveillance is recommended every 3 years in patients with extensive GIM affecting the antrum and body, incomplete GIM, and a family history of gastric cancer.
 

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Sharma is professor of medicine and director of fellowship training, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Kansas, Kansas City.

In the upper GI section of the Postgraduate course program, Ikuo Hirano, MD, educated us on the refractory patient with eosinophilic esophagitis, reinforcing the need for chronic maintenance treatment and the complementary role of dilation. Gregory Ginsberg, MD, elucidated the specific strategies needed for gastric polyps with advice on which to leave and which to resect. Sachin Wani, MD, carefully outlined the changing landscape of Barrett’s esophagus with emphasis on our move to ablate rather than observe low-grade dysplasia. In the difficult area of treating gastroparesis, Linda Nguyen, MD, acquainted us with some of the newer medications for this disorder and discussed the emerging role of endoscopic pyloromyotomy. Michael Camilleri, MD, delivered a thorough analysis on the concept of leaky gut with data-driven recommendations on testing and the lack of adequate treatment. Finally, William Chey, MD, gave perspective to diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel bacterial overgrowth, particularly with its role in irritable bowel syndrome.

In the lower GI section of the course, Sunanda Kane, MD, gave a wonderful overview the present and emerging biologics for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). David Rubin, MD, shared his expertise and vast experience for best management of ulcerative colitis while Edward Loftus Jr., MD, discussed the fact and fiction of diet-based therapy in IBD. This was followed by a timely lecture by Christina Ha, MD, on the need to think well outside the GI tract in IBD, discussing infections, cancers, and vaccinations in patients with IBD. The IBD section finished with an erudite and timely lecture by Marla Dubinsky, MD, evaluating the controversy over use of biosimilars in our clinical practice. The remainder of the lower GI section started with AGA President David Lieberman, MD, analyzing recent data on the need to move the colonic cancer screening age to 45 years, particularly in African Americans. Following this was a timely talk by Xavie Llor, MD, PhD, on when to suspect and how to test for the expanding definition of Lynch syndrome. Lin Chang, MD, delivered the penultimate clinical lecture on management of irritable bowel syndrome based on her many years of clinical expertise in this area. Finally, Gail Hecht, MD, AGAF, a former AGA president, summarized the exciting world of microbiome research from the recent annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit. All in all it was considered one of the best AGA Postgraduate courses by many and we look forward to even greater improvements for 2020.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Katzka is professor of medicine and head of the Esophageal Interest Group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He is on the advisory boards for Shire and Celgene.

In the upper GI section of the Postgraduate course program, Ikuo Hirano, MD, educated us on the refractory patient with eosinophilic esophagitis, reinforcing the need for chronic maintenance treatment and the complementary role of dilation. Gregory Ginsberg, MD, elucidated the specific strategies needed for gastric polyps with advice on which to leave and which to resect. Sachin Wani, MD, carefully outlined the changing landscape of Barrett’s esophagus with emphasis on our move to ablate rather than observe low-grade dysplasia. In the difficult area of treating gastroparesis, Linda Nguyen, MD, acquainted us with some of the newer medications for this disorder and discussed the emerging role of endoscopic pyloromyotomy. Michael Camilleri, MD, delivered a thorough analysis on the concept of leaky gut with data-driven recommendations on testing and the lack of adequate treatment. Finally, William Chey, MD, gave perspective to diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel bacterial overgrowth, particularly with its role in irritable bowel syndrome.

In the lower GI section of the course, Sunanda Kane, MD, gave a wonderful overview the present and emerging biologics for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). David Rubin, MD, shared his expertise and vast experience for best management of ulcerative colitis while Edward Loftus Jr., MD, discussed the fact and fiction of diet-based therapy in IBD. This was followed by a timely lecture by Christina Ha, MD, on the need to think well outside the GI tract in IBD, discussing infections, cancers, and vaccinations in patients with IBD. The IBD section finished with an erudite and timely lecture by Marla Dubinsky, MD, evaluating the controversy over use of biosimilars in our clinical practice. The remainder of the lower GI section started with AGA President David Lieberman, MD, analyzing recent data on the need to move the colonic cancer screening age to 45 years, particularly in African Americans. Following this was a timely talk by Xavie Llor, MD, PhD, on when to suspect and how to test for the expanding definition of Lynch syndrome. Lin Chang, MD, delivered the penultimate clinical lecture on management of irritable bowel syndrome based on her many years of clinical expertise in this area. Finally, Gail Hecht, MD, AGAF, a former AGA president, summarized the exciting world of microbiome research from the recent annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit. All in all it was considered one of the best AGA Postgraduate courses by many and we look forward to even greater improvements for 2020.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Katzka is professor of medicine and head of the Esophageal Interest Group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He is on the advisory boards for Shire and Celgene.

In the upper GI section of the Postgraduate course program, Ikuo Hirano, MD, educated us on the refractory patient with eosinophilic esophagitis, reinforcing the need for chronic maintenance treatment and the complementary role of dilation. Gregory Ginsberg, MD, elucidated the specific strategies needed for gastric polyps with advice on which to leave and which to resect. Sachin Wani, MD, carefully outlined the changing landscape of Barrett’s esophagus with emphasis on our move to ablate rather than observe low-grade dysplasia. In the difficult area of treating gastroparesis, Linda Nguyen, MD, acquainted us with some of the newer medications for this disorder and discussed the emerging role of endoscopic pyloromyotomy. Michael Camilleri, MD, delivered a thorough analysis on the concept of leaky gut with data-driven recommendations on testing and the lack of adequate treatment. Finally, William Chey, MD, gave perspective to diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel bacterial overgrowth, particularly with its role in irritable bowel syndrome.

In the lower GI section of the course, Sunanda Kane, MD, gave a wonderful overview the present and emerging biologics for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). David Rubin, MD, shared his expertise and vast experience for best management of ulcerative colitis while Edward Loftus Jr., MD, discussed the fact and fiction of diet-based therapy in IBD. This was followed by a timely lecture by Christina Ha, MD, on the need to think well outside the GI tract in IBD, discussing infections, cancers, and vaccinations in patients with IBD. The IBD section finished with an erudite and timely lecture by Marla Dubinsky, MD, evaluating the controversy over use of biosimilars in our clinical practice. The remainder of the lower GI section started with AGA President David Lieberman, MD, analyzing recent data on the need to move the colonic cancer screening age to 45 years, particularly in African Americans. Following this was a timely talk by Xavie Llor, MD, PhD, on when to suspect and how to test for the expanding definition of Lynch syndrome. Lin Chang, MD, delivered the penultimate clinical lecture on management of irritable bowel syndrome based on her many years of clinical expertise in this area. Finally, Gail Hecht, MD, AGAF, a former AGA president, summarized the exciting world of microbiome research from the recent annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit. All in all it was considered one of the best AGA Postgraduate courses by many and we look forward to even greater improvements for 2020.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Katzka is professor of medicine and head of the Esophageal Interest Group at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. He is on the advisory boards for Shire and Celgene.

The course was framed with the theme, “The Practice of Gastroenterology: The Literature and the Art,” with each speaker highlighting not only the relevant updates in the literature, but also sharing the insights into the art of medical practice. The course incorporated an audience response system to fully utilize the available educational technology and increase participant engagement.

Manal Abdelmalek, MD, provided an update on the hot topic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including new developments in pharmacotherapy. The AGA President-elect, Hashem El-Serag, MD, MPH, AGAF, delivered a state-of-the-art presentation on the burgeoning burden of hepatocellular carcinoma and cutting-edge multidisciplinary management. Vijay Shah, MD, then reminded us of the persistent presence of alcoholic liver disease in the United States and the controversies surrounding liver transplantation in this setting. Steven Flamm, MD, completed the liver session by sharing the secrets of managing the complications of cirrhosis.

The second session, on the pancreas and biliary tract, was headed by Timothy Gardner, MD, who shared the pearls of the management of pancreatitis. Michelle Kim, MD, provided fresh and up-to-date insights on the management of pancreatic and biliary cancer, including updated technological options. Finally, Marcia Canto, MD, discussed the hot topic of pancreatic cancer and whether screening should be instituted. Both of these sessions had designated time set aside for panel discussions with questions from the audience.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Ahn, MD, MS, MBA, is professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

The course was framed with the theme, “The Practice of Gastroenterology: The Literature and the Art,” with each speaker highlighting not only the relevant updates in the literature, but also sharing the insights into the art of medical practice. The course incorporated an audience response system to fully utilize the available educational technology and increase participant engagement.

Manal Abdelmalek, MD, provided an update on the hot topic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including new developments in pharmacotherapy. The AGA President-elect, Hashem El-Serag, MD, MPH, AGAF, delivered a state-of-the-art presentation on the burgeoning burden of hepatocellular carcinoma and cutting-edge multidisciplinary management. Vijay Shah, MD, then reminded us of the persistent presence of alcoholic liver disease in the United States and the controversies surrounding liver transplantation in this setting. Steven Flamm, MD, completed the liver session by sharing the secrets of managing the complications of cirrhosis.

The second session, on the pancreas and biliary tract, was headed by Timothy Gardner, MD, who shared the pearls of the management of pancreatitis. Michelle Kim, MD, provided fresh and up-to-date insights on the management of pancreatic and biliary cancer, including updated technological options. Finally, Marcia Canto, MD, discussed the hot topic of pancreatic cancer and whether screening should be instituted. Both of these sessions had designated time set aside for panel discussions with questions from the audience.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Ahn, MD, MS, MBA, is professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

The course was framed with the theme, “The Practice of Gastroenterology: The Literature and the Art,” with each speaker highlighting not only the relevant updates in the literature, but also sharing the insights into the art of medical practice. The course incorporated an audience response system to fully utilize the available educational technology and increase participant engagement.

Manal Abdelmalek, MD, provided an update on the hot topic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including new developments in pharmacotherapy. The AGA President-elect, Hashem El-Serag, MD, MPH, AGAF, delivered a state-of-the-art presentation on the burgeoning burden of hepatocellular carcinoma and cutting-edge multidisciplinary management. Vijay Shah, MD, then reminded us of the persistent presence of alcoholic liver disease in the United States and the controversies surrounding liver transplantation in this setting. Steven Flamm, MD, completed the liver session by sharing the secrets of managing the complications of cirrhosis.

The second session, on the pancreas and biliary tract, was headed by Timothy Gardner, MD, who shared the pearls of the management of pancreatitis. Michelle Kim, MD, provided fresh and up-to-date insights on the management of pancreatic and biliary cancer, including updated technological options. Finally, Marcia Canto, MD, discussed the hot topic of pancreatic cancer and whether screening should be instituted. Both of these sessions had designated time set aside for panel discussions with questions from the audience.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Ahn, MD, MS, MBA, is professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Authors of endoscopy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) received many more payments from industry than they disclosed, according to a new review of publicly available data.

Additionally, many of the payments came from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers whose products were directly related to the practice guideline topic at hand, said Amir Rumann, MD, and coauthors, who presented their findings in a poster session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

The researchers found that, of 581 authors listed in 38 CPGs, 127 had initially disclosed payments when the guidelines were published. A search of the federal Open Payments database, however, found that 452 of these authors had payments that they did not disclose in the CPG publication process.

For authors with undisclosed payments, the median value of the total undisclosed amounts was $2,445, from a median of 2.5 unique companies, according to records maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The interquartile range for payments was $167-$10,380.

“There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States,” wrote Dr. Rumman and coauthors at the University of Toronto, where Dr. Rumann is a gastroenterology resident.

Of the authors who disclosed payments, 20 (16%) disclosed payments from sources directly related to the CPG in the publication. But the Open Payments database search yielded 314 (54%) disclosed payments that were judged directly related to the CPG topic at hand.

Of the 38 CPGs included in the analysis, 24 were from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and 4 were from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). According to the analysis performed by Dr. Rumman and his coauthors, 23 of these guidelines adhered to standards proposed by the National Academy of Medicine for development of “trustworthy” CPGs.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rumann A et al. DDW 2019, poster Sa1004.

SAN DIEGO – Authors of endoscopy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) received many more payments from industry than they disclosed, according to a new review of publicly available data.

Additionally, many of the payments came from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers whose products were directly related to the practice guideline topic at hand, said Amir Rumann, MD, and coauthors, who presented their findings in a poster session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

The researchers found that, of 581 authors listed in 38 CPGs, 127 had initially disclosed payments when the guidelines were published. A search of the federal Open Payments database, however, found that 452 of these authors had payments that they did not disclose in the CPG publication process.

For authors with undisclosed payments, the median value of the total undisclosed amounts was $2,445, from a median of 2.5 unique companies, according to records maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The interquartile range for payments was $167-$10,380.

“There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States,” wrote Dr. Rumman and coauthors at the University of Toronto, where Dr. Rumann is a gastroenterology resident.

Of the authors who disclosed payments, 20 (16%) disclosed payments from sources directly related to the CPG in the publication. But the Open Payments database search yielded 314 (54%) disclosed payments that were judged directly related to the CPG topic at hand.

Of the 38 CPGs included in the analysis, 24 were from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and 4 were from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). According to the analysis performed by Dr. Rumman and his coauthors, 23 of these guidelines adhered to standards proposed by the National Academy of Medicine for development of “trustworthy” CPGs.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rumann A et al. DDW 2019, poster Sa1004.

SAN DIEGO – Authors of endoscopy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) received many more payments from industry than they disclosed, according to a new review of publicly available data.

Additionally, many of the payments came from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers whose products were directly related to the practice guideline topic at hand, said Amir Rumann, MD, and coauthors, who presented their findings in a poster session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

The researchers found that, of 581 authors listed in 38 CPGs, 127 had initially disclosed payments when the guidelines were published. A search of the federal Open Payments database, however, found that 452 of these authors had payments that they did not disclose in the CPG publication process.

For authors with undisclosed payments, the median value of the total undisclosed amounts was $2,445, from a median of 2.5 unique companies, according to records maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The interquartile range for payments was $167-$10,380.

“There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States,” wrote Dr. Rumman and coauthors at the University of Toronto, where Dr. Rumann is a gastroenterology resident.

Of the authors who disclosed payments, 20 (16%) disclosed payments from sources directly related to the CPG in the publication. But the Open Payments database search yielded 314 (54%) disclosed payments that were judged directly related to the CPG topic at hand.

Of the 38 CPGs included in the analysis, 24 were from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and 4 were from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). According to the analysis performed by Dr. Rumman and his coauthors, 23 of these guidelines adhered to standards proposed by the National Academy of Medicine for development of “trustworthy” CPGs.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rumann A et al. DDW 2019, poster Sa1004.

SAN DIEGO – Two leading figures in microbiome research took time during the annual Digestive Disease Week to share their perspective with members of the press. Identifying key research presented at the meeting and painting a broader picture of trends and challenges in research on the interplay with the microbiota with gut health, Colleen Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., cochair and principal investigator, AGA FMT Registry Steering Committee, led off the round table with a discussion of human research on fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) and obesity.

Purna Kashyap, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., member, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, delved into the potential for donor microbiota transplant to address small bowel disorders, such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and provided commentary regarding the potential – and limitations – of using FMT in functional bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Obesity

Dr. Kelly noted that two abstracts at the conference presented data about FMT in obesity. The first study was presented by Jessica Allegretti, MD, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the second study was presented by Elaine Yu, MD, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The two studies shared some similarities, but had some differences, said Dr. Kelly. “They both used lean donor encapsulated FMT ... and they both were placebo controlled, using placebo capsules.” The first study looked at metabolically healthy obese patients, while the second study included patients with mild to moderate insulin resistance.

Dr. Allegretti’s work looked at the effect that FMT from lean donors had on levels of a satiety peptide, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), while also looking at changes in weight and microbiota, as well as safety. Patients received an initial 30-capsule dose as well as two later doses of 12 capsules each. The 22-patient study, in which individuals were randomized 1:1 to FMT or placebo capsules, didn’t show statistically significant changes in GLP-1 levels or body mass index with FMT over the 12-week study period. “But they were able to show engraftment, which I think is an important thing that you do wonder about – over this period of time, the bacteria that came from the lean donor actually engrafted into the recipient and affected the diversity. The recipient became more similar to the donor,” said Dr. Kelly.

There were some clues among the findings that engraftment was effecting metabolic change in the recipient, she said, including differences in bile acid conversion among gut bacteria; also, lower levels of the primary bile acid taurocholic acid in recipients after FMT. “So it was a negative study in what she was looking for, but an example of these smaller studies kind of pushing the field along.”

In discussing the study presented by Dr. Yu that examined lean donor FMT in individuals with insulin resistance, Dr. Kelly said, “It was actually pretty sophisticated.” By using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamping, the investigators were able to measure insulin sensitivity based on glucose load. In this study of 24 individuals randomized 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo capsules, recipients received weekly doses over a period of 6 weeks. Here again, though Dr. Yu and colleagues again found engraftment, “they did not find the big changes in metabolic parameters that they hoped that they would,” said Dr. Kelly.

These two studies furthered previous work completed in the Netherlands examining lean donor FMT for individuals with metabolic syndrome. “Those [studies] did show both engraftment and some changes in insulin resistance,” but they were also small studies, noted Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kashyap pointed out that the earlier studies had shown in a subgroup analysis that response to FMT was limited to those patients who lacked microbial diversity pretransplant.

This makes some mechanistic sense when thinking about FMT’s greatest success to date: Treating Clostridioides difficile infection, a condition whose very hallmark is dysbiosis characterized by monospecies gut domination, noted Dr. Kashyap.

Added Dr. Kelly, “I think everyone’s hoping there’s going to be this pill that’s going to make us skinny, but I don’t think we’re going to find that with FMT and obesity. I do think these studies are important, because there’s so much animal data already, and we’re kind of like, ‘How much more can you do in mice?’ ” By translating this preclinical work into humans, the mechanisms of obesity and the role of the microbiome can be better understood.

IBS

Turning to functional bowel disorders, Dr. Kelly pointed out a new study examining FMT for IBS. “So far, the research has been pretty disappointing,” she noted. The study, presented by Prashant Singh, MBBS, a gastroenterology fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, examined FMT for patients with moderate to severe diarrhea-predominant IBS. The study had four arms, randomizing the 44 participants to FMT alone; pretreatment with metronidazole and ciprofloxacin or rifaximin, each followed by FMT; or placebo. “It really didn’t show any differences in their severity of IBS in any group; so no effect: a negative study,” said Dr. Kelly.

“It’s challenging. FMT is an appealing strategy because we don’t have to put a lot of thought process into it,” said Dr. Kashyap, but it’s no panacea. “We aren’t going to be able to treat everybody with FMT.

“The challenge with IBS is that if we look at all the compositional studies, the majority of them show that at least a big subset of patients with IBS already have a normal-appearing microbiome,” said Dr. Kashyap. In those patients, “It’s very hard to know what FMT is doing.” He noted that IBS subclassifications are made by pathophysiology, without regard to the intestinal microbiome, so these classifications may not be useful for determining who may benefit from FMT.

“Again, there’s always an opportunity to learn from these studies,” whether they’re positive or negative, as long as they’re well done, said Dr. Kashyap. “There’s always an opportunity to go back and see, was there a specific subgroup of patients who responded, where there might be one or more causes which might be more amenable” to FMT.

Small intestine

And most intestinal microbial research to date, noted Dr. Kelly, has focused on the colon. “Most of our knowledge is of fecal microbiota.” New techniques including double-balloon enteroscopy of the small bowel have promise to “provide completely new information about patterns of bacteria throughout the small bowel,” and of the role of small bowel bacteria in overall gut health, she said.

“The role of the small bowel has been ignored because of accessibility,” agreed Dr. Kashyap. There’s a current focus on research into enteroscopy and other techniques to sample small intestine microbiota, he said.

In a podium presentation, Eugene Chang, MD, Martin Boyer Professor in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine, gave a broad overview of how the small intestine microbiome modulates lipid regulation. This choice of topic for the Charles M. Mansbach Memorial Lecture shows that gastroenterologists are recognizing the importance of microbiome along the entire span of the gut, said Dr. Kashyap. Dr. Chang’s approach, he added, represents a departure in that “it’s not simply just looking at what’s present and what’s not, but seeing what’s functionally relevant to metabolism.”

“We always have known that the small intestine is the workhorse; that’s where everything happens” in terms of motility, absorption, and digestion, said Dr. Kashyap. “But because of our inability to reach it easily we’ve always chosen to ignore it; we always go after the low-hanging fruit.” Despite challenges, more microbiome research should be small-bowel focused. “Eventually, it’s no pain, no gain.”

Dr. Kashyap is on the advisory board of uBiome, and is an ad hoc advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kelly reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated on July 30, 2019.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Two leading figures in microbiome research took time during the annual Digestive Disease Week to share their perspective with members of the press. Identifying key research presented at the meeting and painting a broader picture of trends and challenges in research on the interplay with the microbiota with gut health, Colleen Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., cochair and principal investigator, AGA FMT Registry Steering Committee, led off the round table with a discussion of human research on fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) and obesity.

Purna Kashyap, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., member, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, delved into the potential for donor microbiota transplant to address small bowel disorders, such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and provided commentary regarding the potential – and limitations – of using FMT in functional bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Obesity

Dr. Kelly noted that two abstracts at the conference presented data about FMT in obesity. The first study was presented by Jessica Allegretti, MD, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the second study was presented by Elaine Yu, MD, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The two studies shared some similarities, but had some differences, said Dr. Kelly. “They both used lean donor encapsulated FMT ... and they both were placebo controlled, using placebo capsules.” The first study looked at metabolically healthy obese patients, while the second study included patients with mild to moderate insulin resistance.

Dr. Allegretti’s work looked at the effect that FMT from lean donors had on levels of a satiety peptide, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), while also looking at changes in weight and microbiota, as well as safety. Patients received an initial 30-capsule dose as well as two later doses of 12 capsules each. The 22-patient study, in which individuals were randomized 1:1 to FMT or placebo capsules, didn’t show statistically significant changes in GLP-1 levels or body mass index with FMT over the 12-week study period. “But they were able to show engraftment, which I think is an important thing that you do wonder about – over this period of time, the bacteria that came from the lean donor actually engrafted into the recipient and affected the diversity. The recipient became more similar to the donor,” said Dr. Kelly.

There were some clues among the findings that engraftment was effecting metabolic change in the recipient, she said, including differences in bile acid conversion among gut bacteria; also, lower levels of the primary bile acid taurocholic acid in recipients after FMT. “So it was a negative study in what she was looking for, but an example of these smaller studies kind of pushing the field along.”

In discussing the study presented by Dr. Yu that examined lean donor FMT in individuals with insulin resistance, Dr. Kelly said, “It was actually pretty sophisticated.” By using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamping, the investigators were able to measure insulin sensitivity based on glucose load. In this study of 24 individuals randomized 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo capsules, recipients received weekly doses over a period of 6 weeks. Here again, though Dr. Yu and colleagues again found engraftment, “they did not find the big changes in metabolic parameters that they hoped that they would,” said Dr. Kelly.

These two studies furthered previous work completed in the Netherlands examining lean donor FMT for individuals with metabolic syndrome. “Those [studies] did show both engraftment and some changes in insulin resistance,” but they were also small studies, noted Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kashyap pointed out that the earlier studies had shown in a subgroup analysis that response to FMT was limited to those patients who lacked microbial diversity pretransplant.

This makes some mechanistic sense when thinking about FMT’s greatest success to date: Treating Clostridioides difficile infection, a condition whose very hallmark is dysbiosis characterized by monospecies gut domination, noted Dr. Kashyap.

Added Dr. Kelly, “I think everyone’s hoping there’s going to be this pill that’s going to make us skinny, but I don’t think we’re going to find that with FMT and obesity. I do think these studies are important, because there’s so much animal data already, and we’re kind of like, ‘How much more can you do in mice?’ ” By translating this preclinical work into humans, the mechanisms of obesity and the role of the microbiome can be better understood.

IBS

Turning to functional bowel disorders, Dr. Kelly pointed out a new study examining FMT for IBS. “So far, the research has been pretty disappointing,” she noted. The study, presented by Prashant Singh, MBBS, a gastroenterology fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, examined FMT for patients with moderate to severe diarrhea-predominant IBS. The study had four arms, randomizing the 44 participants to FMT alone; pretreatment with metronidazole and ciprofloxacin or rifaximin, each followed by FMT; or placebo. “It really didn’t show any differences in their severity of IBS in any group; so no effect: a negative study,” said Dr. Kelly.

“It’s challenging. FMT is an appealing strategy because we don’t have to put a lot of thought process into it,” said Dr. Kashyap, but it’s no panacea. “We aren’t going to be able to treat everybody with FMT.

“The challenge with IBS is that if we look at all the compositional studies, the majority of them show that at least a big subset of patients with IBS already have a normal-appearing microbiome,” said Dr. Kashyap. In those patients, “It’s very hard to know what FMT is doing.” He noted that IBS subclassifications are made by pathophysiology, without regard to the intestinal microbiome, so these classifications may not be useful for determining who may benefit from FMT.

“Again, there’s always an opportunity to learn from these studies,” whether they’re positive or negative, as long as they’re well done, said Dr. Kashyap. “There’s always an opportunity to go back and see, was there a specific subgroup of patients who responded, where there might be one or more causes which might be more amenable” to FMT.

Small intestine

And most intestinal microbial research to date, noted Dr. Kelly, has focused on the colon. “Most of our knowledge is of fecal microbiota.” New techniques including double-balloon enteroscopy of the small bowel have promise to “provide completely new information about patterns of bacteria throughout the small bowel,” and of the role of small bowel bacteria in overall gut health, she said.

“The role of the small bowel has been ignored because of accessibility,” agreed Dr. Kashyap. There’s a current focus on research into enteroscopy and other techniques to sample small intestine microbiota, he said.

In a podium presentation, Eugene Chang, MD, Martin Boyer Professor in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine, gave a broad overview of how the small intestine microbiome modulates lipid regulation. This choice of topic for the Charles M. Mansbach Memorial Lecture shows that gastroenterologists are recognizing the importance of microbiome along the entire span of the gut, said Dr. Kashyap. Dr. Chang’s approach, he added, represents a departure in that “it’s not simply just looking at what’s present and what’s not, but seeing what’s functionally relevant to metabolism.”

“We always have known that the small intestine is the workhorse; that’s where everything happens” in terms of motility, absorption, and digestion, said Dr. Kashyap. “But because of our inability to reach it easily we’ve always chosen to ignore it; we always go after the low-hanging fruit.” Despite challenges, more microbiome research should be small-bowel focused. “Eventually, it’s no pain, no gain.”

Dr. Kashyap is on the advisory board of uBiome, and is an ad hoc advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kelly reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated on July 30, 2019.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Two leading figures in microbiome research took time during the annual Digestive Disease Week to share their perspective with members of the press. Identifying key research presented at the meeting and painting a broader picture of trends and challenges in research on the interplay with the microbiota with gut health, Colleen Kelly, MD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., cochair and principal investigator, AGA FMT Registry Steering Committee, led off the round table with a discussion of human research on fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) and obesity.

Purna Kashyap, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., member, AGA Center for Gut Microbiome Research and Education Scientific Advisory Board, delved into the potential for donor microbiota transplant to address small bowel disorders, such as small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, and provided commentary regarding the potential – and limitations – of using FMT in functional bowel disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Obesity

Dr. Kelly noted that two abstracts at the conference presented data about FMT in obesity. The first study was presented by Jessica Allegretti, MD, a gastroenterologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston; the second study was presented by Elaine Yu, MD, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The two studies shared some similarities, but had some differences, said Dr. Kelly. “They both used lean donor encapsulated FMT ... and they both were placebo controlled, using placebo capsules.” The first study looked at metabolically healthy obese patients, while the second study included patients with mild to moderate insulin resistance.

Dr. Allegretti’s work looked at the effect that FMT from lean donors had on levels of a satiety peptide, glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), while also looking at changes in weight and microbiota, as well as safety. Patients received an initial 30-capsule dose as well as two later doses of 12 capsules each. The 22-patient study, in which individuals were randomized 1:1 to FMT or placebo capsules, didn’t show statistically significant changes in GLP-1 levels or body mass index with FMT over the 12-week study period. “But they were able to show engraftment, which I think is an important thing that you do wonder about – over this period of time, the bacteria that came from the lean donor actually engrafted into the recipient and affected the diversity. The recipient became more similar to the donor,” said Dr. Kelly.

There were some clues among the findings that engraftment was effecting metabolic change in the recipient, she said, including differences in bile acid conversion among gut bacteria; also, lower levels of the primary bile acid taurocholic acid in recipients after FMT. “So it was a negative study in what she was looking for, but an example of these smaller studies kind of pushing the field along.”

In discussing the study presented by Dr. Yu that examined lean donor FMT in individuals with insulin resistance, Dr. Kelly said, “It was actually pretty sophisticated.” By using hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamping, the investigators were able to measure insulin sensitivity based on glucose load. In this study of 24 individuals randomized 1:1 to receive FMT or placebo capsules, recipients received weekly doses over a period of 6 weeks. Here again, though Dr. Yu and colleagues again found engraftment, “they did not find the big changes in metabolic parameters that they hoped that they would,” said Dr. Kelly.

These two studies furthered previous work completed in the Netherlands examining lean donor FMT for individuals with metabolic syndrome. “Those [studies] did show both engraftment and some changes in insulin resistance,” but they were also small studies, noted Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kashyap pointed out that the earlier studies had shown in a subgroup analysis that response to FMT was limited to those patients who lacked microbial diversity pretransplant.

This makes some mechanistic sense when thinking about FMT’s greatest success to date: Treating Clostridioides difficile infection, a condition whose very hallmark is dysbiosis characterized by monospecies gut domination, noted Dr. Kashyap.

Added Dr. Kelly, “I think everyone’s hoping there’s going to be this pill that’s going to make us skinny, but I don’t think we’re going to find that with FMT and obesity. I do think these studies are important, because there’s so much animal data already, and we’re kind of like, ‘How much more can you do in mice?’ ” By translating this preclinical work into humans, the mechanisms of obesity and the role of the microbiome can be better understood.

IBS

Turning to functional bowel disorders, Dr. Kelly pointed out a new study examining FMT for IBS. “So far, the research has been pretty disappointing,” she noted. The study, presented by Prashant Singh, MBBS, a gastroenterology fellow at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, examined FMT for patients with moderate to severe diarrhea-predominant IBS. The study had four arms, randomizing the 44 participants to FMT alone; pretreatment with metronidazole and ciprofloxacin or rifaximin, each followed by FMT; or placebo. “It really didn’t show any differences in their severity of IBS in any group; so no effect: a negative study,” said Dr. Kelly.

“It’s challenging. FMT is an appealing strategy because we don’t have to put a lot of thought process into it,” said Dr. Kashyap, but it’s no panacea. “We aren’t going to be able to treat everybody with FMT.

“The challenge with IBS is that if we look at all the compositional studies, the majority of them show that at least a big subset of patients with IBS already have a normal-appearing microbiome,” said Dr. Kashyap. In those patients, “It’s very hard to know what FMT is doing.” He noted that IBS subclassifications are made by pathophysiology, without regard to the intestinal microbiome, so these classifications may not be useful for determining who may benefit from FMT.

“Again, there’s always an opportunity to learn from these studies,” whether they’re positive or negative, as long as they’re well done, said Dr. Kashyap. “There’s always an opportunity to go back and see, was there a specific subgroup of patients who responded, where there might be one or more causes which might be more amenable” to FMT.

Small intestine

And most intestinal microbial research to date, noted Dr. Kelly, has focused on the colon. “Most of our knowledge is of fecal microbiota.” New techniques including double-balloon enteroscopy of the small bowel have promise to “provide completely new information about patterns of bacteria throughout the small bowel,” and of the role of small bowel bacteria in overall gut health, she said.

“The role of the small bowel has been ignored because of accessibility,” agreed Dr. Kashyap. There’s a current focus on research into enteroscopy and other techniques to sample small intestine microbiota, he said.

In a podium presentation, Eugene Chang, MD, Martin Boyer Professor in the University of Chicago’s department of medicine, gave a broad overview of how the small intestine microbiome modulates lipid regulation. This choice of topic for the Charles M. Mansbach Memorial Lecture shows that gastroenterologists are recognizing the importance of microbiome along the entire span of the gut, said Dr. Kashyap. Dr. Chang’s approach, he added, represents a departure in that “it’s not simply just looking at what’s present and what’s not, but seeing what’s functionally relevant to metabolism.”

“We always have known that the small intestine is the workhorse; that’s where everything happens” in terms of motility, absorption, and digestion, said Dr. Kashyap. “But because of our inability to reach it easily we’ve always chosen to ignore it; we always go after the low-hanging fruit.” Despite challenges, more microbiome research should be small-bowel focused. “Eventually, it’s no pain, no gain.”

Dr. Kashyap is on the advisory board of uBiome, and is an ad hoc advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kelly reported no conflicts of interest.

This story was updated on July 30, 2019.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Authors of endoscopy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) received many more payments from industry than they disclosed, according to a new review of publicly available data.

Additionally, many of the payments came from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers whose products were directly related to the practice guideline topic at hand, said Amir Rumann, MD, and coauthors, who presented their findings in a poster session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

The researchers found that, of 581 authors listed in 38 CPGs, 127 had initially disclosed payments when the guidelines were published. A search of the federal Open Payments database, however, found that 452 of these authors had payments that they did not disclose in the CPG publication process.

For authors with undisclosed payments, the median value of the total undisclosed amounts was $2,445, from a median of 2.5 unique companies, according to records maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The interquartile range for payments was $167-$10,380.

“There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States,” wrote Dr. Rumman and coauthors at the University of Toronto, where Dr. Rumann is a gastroenterology resident.

Of the authors who disclosed payments, 20 (16%) disclosed payments from sources directly related to the CPG in the publication. But the Open Payments database search yielded 314 (54%) disclosed payments that were judged directly related to the CPG topic at hand.

Of the 38 CPGs included in the analysis, 24 were from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and 4 were from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). According to the analysis performed by Dr. Rumman and his coauthors, 23 of these guidelines adhered to standards proposed by the National Academy of Medicine for development of “trustworthy” CPGs.

“The prevalence of conflicts of interest in the form of industry payments among physicians is well described in academic literature. A number of studies, including several from our group, have found there is a high burden of these payments among authors and chairs of CPGs in various therapeutic areas,” commented senior author Samir Grover, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Toronto. “Additionally, the existing literature has shown that many of these payments go undisclosed in the CPG themselves. This is concerning. Although the presence of these payments doesn’t necessarily indicate any obvious wrongdoing on the part of the recipients, it can undermine public and professional trust in guidelines.”

In its 2011 report, the National Academy of Medicine outlined three criteria for trustworthy guidelines. These include ensuring that committee chairs do not have financial conflicts of interest (COIs), limiting authors who do have financial COIs to less than half of the guideline drafting panel, and disclosing financially motivated relationships between individual health care providers and members of industry. “To our surprise, our findings demonstrated that none of the CPGs we identified met all of these criteria,” noted Dr. Grover, adding that “this finding highlights the importance of accountability at both the contributor level (to ensure conflicts are appropriately declared) and at the level of the sponsoring society (to ensure that guideline committee members and chairs are selected a priori for reasons that include impact of conflicts).”

Dr. Rumann and his colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study, including all endoscopy-related CPGs from AGA and ASGE published from 2014 through 2017. They performed a manual reconciliation between financial COIs disclosed in CPG documents and those reported in the Open Payments database maintained by CMS, which includes data from August 2013 to December 2017. “We decided to focus on CPGs of relevance to endoscopy, as the majority of the work to date has revolved around pharma and not devices, a potentially significant other source for industry payments to physicians,” explained Dr. Grover.

In the Open Payments database, payment types are recorded as general payments, research payments, or ownerships or investments. For each payment transaction, the type, amount, and date of payment are recorded, as is the payer.

In all, 91 individuals appeared as authors 581 times. The median number of CPGs per author was 2 with a range of 1-26.

About 80% of authors had payments reported in the Open Payments database. Though Dr. Grover acknowledged that reporting errors may exist in the Open Payments database, this fact, he said, “highlights the need for greater involvement of physicians in correct declaration of their payments.”

Among the guideline authors, 119 (20.5%) had originally disclosed general payments. However, more than three times that many authors had undisclosed records of general payments that showed up in the Open Payments database query. In all, 399 authors (68.6%) had received general payments, according to the database.

Though all 12 of the ownership or investment payments seen on Open Payments were disclosed, just 40 of 74 research payments were disclosed, said Dr. Rumann and coauthors.

“Given the potential impact of these undisclosed payments on CPGs, stricter policies on conflict of interest disclosures are needed,” they wrote.

When asked whether he would expect change to come from the findings, Dr. Grover replied, “First and foremost, we want to increase the awareness of the issue, among both the health professions and the public. While we believe that more research into COI in general is required, our study, along with similar papers in the field, show that CPGs authors need to be more cognizant of declaration of potential conflicts. In addition to being hopeful that readers of the article will be prompted to exert more diligence in tracking and declaring any payments they have received, we are hopeful that sponsoring societies self-regulate the membership of CPG committees and the choice of chairs in accordance with established criteria to mitigate conflicts.”

Dr. Rumann and other coauthors reported no conflicts of interest. Senior author Samir Grover, MD, reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rumann A et al. DDW 2019, poster Sa1004.

SAN DIEGO – Authors of endoscopy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) received many more payments from industry than they disclosed, according to a new review of publicly available data.

Additionally, many of the payments came from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers whose products were directly related to the practice guideline topic at hand, said Amir Rumann, MD, and coauthors, who presented their findings in a poster session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

The researchers found that, of 581 authors listed in 38 CPGs, 127 had initially disclosed payments when the guidelines were published. A search of the federal Open Payments database, however, found that 452 of these authors had payments that they did not disclose in the CPG publication process.

For authors with undisclosed payments, the median value of the total undisclosed amounts was $2,445, from a median of 2.5 unique companies, according to records maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The interquartile range for payments was $167-$10,380.

“There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States,” wrote Dr. Rumman and coauthors at the University of Toronto, where Dr. Rumann is a gastroenterology resident.

Of the authors who disclosed payments, 20 (16%) disclosed payments from sources directly related to the CPG in the publication. But the Open Payments database search yielded 314 (54%) disclosed payments that were judged directly related to the CPG topic at hand.

Of the 38 CPGs included in the analysis, 24 were from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and 4 were from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). According to the analysis performed by Dr. Rumman and his coauthors, 23 of these guidelines adhered to standards proposed by the National Academy of Medicine for development of “trustworthy” CPGs.

“The prevalence of conflicts of interest in the form of industry payments among physicians is well described in academic literature. A number of studies, including several from our group, have found there is a high burden of these payments among authors and chairs of CPGs in various therapeutic areas,” commented senior author Samir Grover, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Toronto. “Additionally, the existing literature has shown that many of these payments go undisclosed in the CPG themselves. This is concerning. Although the presence of these payments doesn’t necessarily indicate any obvious wrongdoing on the part of the recipients, it can undermine public and professional trust in guidelines.”

In its 2011 report, the National Academy of Medicine outlined three criteria for trustworthy guidelines. These include ensuring that committee chairs do not have financial conflicts of interest (COIs), limiting authors who do have financial COIs to less than half of the guideline drafting panel, and disclosing financially motivated relationships between individual health care providers and members of industry. “To our surprise, our findings demonstrated that none of the CPGs we identified met all of these criteria,” noted Dr. Grover, adding that “this finding highlights the importance of accountability at both the contributor level (to ensure conflicts are appropriately declared) and at the level of the sponsoring society (to ensure that guideline committee members and chairs are selected a priori for reasons that include impact of conflicts).”

Dr. Rumann and his colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study, including all endoscopy-related CPGs from AGA and ASGE published from 2014 through 2017. They performed a manual reconciliation between financial COIs disclosed in CPG documents and those reported in the Open Payments database maintained by CMS, which includes data from August 2013 to December 2017. “We decided to focus on CPGs of relevance to endoscopy, as the majority of the work to date has revolved around pharma and not devices, a potentially significant other source for industry payments to physicians,” explained Dr. Grover.

In the Open Payments database, payment types are recorded as general payments, research payments, or ownerships or investments. For each payment transaction, the type, amount, and date of payment are recorded, as is the payer.

In all, 91 individuals appeared as authors 581 times. The median number of CPGs per author was 2 with a range of 1-26.

About 80% of authors had payments reported in the Open Payments database. Though Dr. Grover acknowledged that reporting errors may exist in the Open Payments database, this fact, he said, “highlights the need for greater involvement of physicians in correct declaration of their payments.”

Among the guideline authors, 119 (20.5%) had originally disclosed general payments. However, more than three times that many authors had undisclosed records of general payments that showed up in the Open Payments database query. In all, 399 authors (68.6%) had received general payments, according to the database.

Though all 12 of the ownership or investment payments seen on Open Payments were disclosed, just 40 of 74 research payments were disclosed, said Dr. Rumann and coauthors.

“Given the potential impact of these undisclosed payments on CPGs, stricter policies on conflict of interest disclosures are needed,” they wrote.

When asked whether he would expect change to come from the findings, Dr. Grover replied, “First and foremost, we want to increase the awareness of the issue, among both the health professions and the public. While we believe that more research into COI in general is required, our study, along with similar papers in the field, show that CPGs authors need to be more cognizant of declaration of potential conflicts. In addition to being hopeful that readers of the article will be prompted to exert more diligence in tracking and declaring any payments they have received, we are hopeful that sponsoring societies self-regulate the membership of CPG committees and the choice of chairs in accordance with established criteria to mitigate conflicts.”

Dr. Rumann and other coauthors reported no conflicts of interest. Senior author Samir Grover, MD, reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rumann A et al. DDW 2019, poster Sa1004.

SAN DIEGO – Authors of endoscopy clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) received many more payments from industry than they disclosed, according to a new review of publicly available data.

Additionally, many of the payments came from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers whose products were directly related to the practice guideline topic at hand, said Amir Rumann, MD, and coauthors, who presented their findings in a poster session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^®.

The researchers found that, of 581 authors listed in 38 CPGs, 127 had initially disclosed payments when the guidelines were published. A search of the federal Open Payments database, however, found that 452 of these authors had payments that they did not disclose in the CPG publication process.

For authors with undisclosed payments, the median value of the total undisclosed amounts was $2,445, from a median of 2.5 unique companies, according to records maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The interquartile range for payments was $167-$10,380.

“There is a high burden of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States,” wrote Dr. Rumman and coauthors at the University of Toronto, where Dr. Rumann is a gastroenterology resident.

Of the authors who disclosed payments, 20 (16%) disclosed payments from sources directly related to the CPG in the publication. But the Open Payments database search yielded 314 (54%) disclosed payments that were judged directly related to the CPG topic at hand.

Of the 38 CPGs included in the analysis, 24 were from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and 4 were from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). According to the analysis performed by Dr. Rumman and his coauthors, 23 of these guidelines adhered to standards proposed by the National Academy of Medicine for development of “trustworthy” CPGs.

“The prevalence of conflicts of interest in the form of industry payments among physicians is well described in academic literature. A number of studies, including several from our group, have found there is a high burden of these payments among authors and chairs of CPGs in various therapeutic areas,” commented senior author Samir Grover, MD, a gastroenterologist at the University of Toronto. “Additionally, the existing literature has shown that many of these payments go undisclosed in the CPG themselves. This is concerning. Although the presence of these payments doesn’t necessarily indicate any obvious wrongdoing on the part of the recipients, it can undermine public and professional trust in guidelines.”

In its 2011 report, the National Academy of Medicine outlined three criteria for trustworthy guidelines. These include ensuring that committee chairs do not have financial conflicts of interest (COIs), limiting authors who do have financial COIs to less than half of the guideline drafting panel, and disclosing financially motivated relationships between individual health care providers and members of industry. “To our surprise, our findings demonstrated that none of the CPGs we identified met all of these criteria,” noted Dr. Grover, adding that “this finding highlights the importance of accountability at both the contributor level (to ensure conflicts are appropriately declared) and at the level of the sponsoring society (to ensure that guideline committee members and chairs are selected a priori for reasons that include impact of conflicts).”

Dr. Rumann and his colleagues conducted a cross-sectional study, including all endoscopy-related CPGs from AGA and ASGE published from 2014 through 2017. They performed a manual reconciliation between financial COIs disclosed in CPG documents and those reported in the Open Payments database maintained by CMS, which includes data from August 2013 to December 2017. “We decided to focus on CPGs of relevance to endoscopy, as the majority of the work to date has revolved around pharma and not devices, a potentially significant other source for industry payments to physicians,” explained Dr. Grover.

In the Open Payments database, payment types are recorded as general payments, research payments, or ownerships or investments. For each payment transaction, the type, amount, and date of payment are recorded, as is the payer.

In all, 91 individuals appeared as authors 581 times. The median number of CPGs per author was 2 with a range of 1-26.

About 80% of authors had payments reported in the Open Payments database. Though Dr. Grover acknowledged that reporting errors may exist in the Open Payments database, this fact, he said, “highlights the need for greater involvement of physicians in correct declaration of their payments.”

Among the guideline authors, 119 (20.5%) had originally disclosed general payments. However, more than three times that many authors had undisclosed records of general payments that showed up in the Open Payments database query. In all, 399 authors (68.6%) had received general payments, according to the database.

Though all 12 of the ownership or investment payments seen on Open Payments were disclosed, just 40 of 74 research payments were disclosed, said Dr. Rumann and coauthors.

“Given the potential impact of these undisclosed payments on CPGs, stricter policies on conflict of interest disclosures are needed,” they wrote.

When asked whether he would expect change to come from the findings, Dr. Grover replied, “First and foremost, we want to increase the awareness of the issue, among both the health professions and the public. While we believe that more research into COI in general is required, our study, along with similar papers in the field, show that CPGs authors need to be more cognizant of declaration of potential conflicts. In addition to being hopeful that readers of the article will be prompted to exert more diligence in tracking and declaring any payments they have received, we are hopeful that sponsoring societies self-regulate the membership of CPG committees and the choice of chairs in accordance with established criteria to mitigate conflicts.”

Dr. Rumann and other coauthors reported no conflicts of interest. Senior author Samir Grover, MD, reported financial relationships with several pharmaceutical companies.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Rumann A et al. DDW 2019, poster Sa1004.

The gut microbiota influences our biology through our mucosal immune system as well as by leading to the production of bioactive small molecules. I’ll describe how gut microbiota influences colon cancer, liver disease, the production of bioactive compounds, as well as the current status and future prospects of microbiota therapeutics.

The gut microbiota may be a factor in colon cancer. Studies have shown that bacterial biofilms are associated with right-sided colon cancers in humans. More recently, a study has shown that mucosal biofilm formation is carcinogenic in an animal model, suggesting that such biofilms may play a role in the disease pathogenesis. From the standpoint of the liver, the microbiome may be a biomarker for diseases such as cirrhosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Therapeutically, a recent study suggests that the function of gut microbiota can be altered by introducing an engineered Escherichia coli bacterial strain to treat hyperammonemia by modifying its metabolism to overproduce arginine, thereby sequestering ammonia produced by gut bacteria into the amino acids (Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jan 16;11[475]. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau7975). Drug metabolism also can be influenced by the gut microbiota and vice versa. For example, drugs such as metformin have effects on the composition of the gut microbiota in humans. In turn, the gut microbiota and its metabolites can have an influence on hepatic drug metabolism, thereby altering xenobiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

The production of bioactive small molecules by bacterial metabolism is a topic of intense interest in the microbiome field. Such small molecules have been shown to act as antibiotics, neurotransmitters, immune modulators, and ligands for host receptors. Some of these small metabolites are generated through the dietary aromatic amino acids in which the bacterial enzymatic pathways are being elucidated. Such small molecules have a myriad of functions. For example, indole propionic acid, a bacterial metabolite of tryptophan, can activate the pregnane X receptor to fortify intestinal epithelial barrier function, a pathway that may have relevance to inflammatory bowel disease.

Probiotics that are found in dietary supplements represent our currently available strategy for the prevention and/or treatment of disease through the delivery of specific live microbes. However, there are limitations to their effectiveness since none have been approved for the prevention or treatment of any disease process. Via an intensive human subject study, (Cell. 2018 Sep 6;174[6]:1388-405) investigators have shown that the mucosally associated microbiota was a better biomarker for probiotic engraftment than stool was, where the response was very personalized. It’s possible that the personalized nature of probiotic engraftment may indicate that “one size may not fit all.” There will be a technical review and guideline document published by the American Gastroenterological Association early in 2020.

Currently, the only effective therapeutic modality for the treatment of a human disease by deeply altering the composition of the gut microbiota is the use of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). However, there is now early evidence that FMT might have efficacy in the treatment of a disease other than recurrent CDI, namely ulcerative colitis. Although the short-term risks for FMT are low and quantifiable and long-term risks are largely hypothetical, there is a need for caution and regulation in the practice of FMT. Indeed, long-term engraftment of bacterial strains from the donor into the recipient has been demonstrated. Ultimately, as the science in the microbiota field moves forward together with product development, more sophisticated microbiota-based therapeutics will be generated. During this interim period, the AGA and partner national societies have developed an FMT National Registry to gather information on FMT practice, assess effectiveness as well as short- and long-term safety, and promote scientific investigation.

In conclusion, the field of gut microbiome research is very dynamic and exciting with tremendous opportunities at the intersection between fabulous science and technology, clinical practice, and federal regulation involving the practice of FMT, concurrent in a significant interest in intellectual property and business.
 

Dr. Wu is the Ferdinand G. Weisbrod Professor in Gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He has received research funding from Seres Therapeutics, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; is on the scientific advisory board for Danone and Biocodex; and does consulting for Hitachi High-Technologies. Dr. Wu made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

The gut microbiota influences our biology through our mucosal immune system as well as by leading to the production of bioactive small molecules. I’ll describe how gut microbiota influences colon cancer, liver disease, the production of bioactive compounds, as well as the current status and future prospects of microbiota therapeutics.

The gut microbiota may be a factor in colon cancer. Studies have shown that bacterial biofilms are associated with right-sided colon cancers in humans. More recently, a study has shown that mucosal biofilm formation is carcinogenic in an animal model, suggesting that such biofilms may play a role in the disease pathogenesis. From the standpoint of the liver, the microbiome may be a biomarker for diseases such as cirrhosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Therapeutically, a recent study suggests that the function of gut microbiota can be altered by introducing an engineered Escherichia coli bacterial strain to treat hyperammonemia by modifying its metabolism to overproduce arginine, thereby sequestering ammonia produced by gut bacteria into the amino acids (Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jan 16;11[475]. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau7975). Drug metabolism also can be influenced by the gut microbiota and vice versa. For example, drugs such as metformin have effects on the composition of the gut microbiota in humans. In turn, the gut microbiota and its metabolites can have an influence on hepatic drug metabolism, thereby altering xenobiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

The production of bioactive small molecules by bacterial metabolism is a topic of intense interest in the microbiome field. Such small molecules have been shown to act as antibiotics, neurotransmitters, immune modulators, and ligands for host receptors. Some of these small metabolites are generated through the dietary aromatic amino acids in which the bacterial enzymatic pathways are being elucidated. Such small molecules have a myriad of functions. For example, indole propionic acid, a bacterial metabolite of tryptophan, can activate the pregnane X receptor to fortify intestinal epithelial barrier function, a pathway that may have relevance to inflammatory bowel disease.

Probiotics that are found in dietary supplements represent our currently available strategy for the prevention and/or treatment of disease through the delivery of specific live microbes. However, there are limitations to their effectiveness since none have been approved for the prevention or treatment of any disease process. Via an intensive human subject study, (Cell. 2018 Sep 6;174[6]:1388-405) investigators have shown that the mucosally associated microbiota was a better biomarker for probiotic engraftment than stool was, where the response was very personalized. It’s possible that the personalized nature of probiotic engraftment may indicate that “one size may not fit all.” There will be a technical review and guideline document published by the American Gastroenterological Association early in 2020.

Currently, the only effective therapeutic modality for the treatment of a human disease by deeply altering the composition of the gut microbiota is the use of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). However, there is now early evidence that FMT might have efficacy in the treatment of a disease other than recurrent CDI, namely ulcerative colitis. Although the short-term risks for FMT are low and quantifiable and long-term risks are largely hypothetical, there is a need for caution and regulation in the practice of FMT. Indeed, long-term engraftment of bacterial strains from the donor into the recipient has been demonstrated. Ultimately, as the science in the microbiota field moves forward together with product development, more sophisticated microbiota-based therapeutics will be generated. During this interim period, the AGA and partner national societies have developed an FMT National Registry to gather information on FMT practice, assess effectiveness as well as short- and long-term safety, and promote scientific investigation.

In conclusion, the field of gut microbiome research is very dynamic and exciting with tremendous opportunities at the intersection between fabulous science and technology, clinical practice, and federal regulation involving the practice of FMT, concurrent in a significant interest in intellectual property and business.
 

Dr. Wu is the Ferdinand G. Weisbrod Professor in Gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He has received research funding from Seres Therapeutics, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; is on the scientific advisory board for Danone and Biocodex; and does consulting for Hitachi High-Technologies. Dr. Wu made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

The gut microbiota influences our biology through our mucosal immune system as well as by leading to the production of bioactive small molecules. I’ll describe how gut microbiota influences colon cancer, liver disease, the production of bioactive compounds, as well as the current status and future prospects of microbiota therapeutics.

The gut microbiota may be a factor in colon cancer. Studies have shown that bacterial biofilms are associated with right-sided colon cancers in humans. More recently, a study has shown that mucosal biofilm formation is carcinogenic in an animal model, suggesting that such biofilms may play a role in the disease pathogenesis. From the standpoint of the liver, the microbiome may be a biomarker for diseases such as cirrhosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Therapeutically, a recent study suggests that the function of gut microbiota can be altered by introducing an engineered Escherichia coli bacterial strain to treat hyperammonemia by modifying its metabolism to overproduce arginine, thereby sequestering ammonia produced by gut bacteria into the amino acids (Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jan 16;11[475]. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aau7975). Drug metabolism also can be influenced by the gut microbiota and vice versa. For example, drugs such as metformin have effects on the composition of the gut microbiota in humans. In turn, the gut microbiota and its metabolites can have an influence on hepatic drug metabolism, thereby altering xenobiotic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

The production of bioactive small molecules by bacterial metabolism is a topic of intense interest in the microbiome field. Such small molecules have been shown to act as antibiotics, neurotransmitters, immune modulators, and ligands for host receptors. Some of these small metabolites are generated through the dietary aromatic amino acids in which the bacterial enzymatic pathways are being elucidated. Such small molecules have a myriad of functions. For example, indole propionic acid, a bacterial metabolite of tryptophan, can activate the pregnane X receptor to fortify intestinal epithelial barrier function, a pathway that may have relevance to inflammatory bowel disease.

Probiotics that are found in dietary supplements represent our currently available strategy for the prevention and/or treatment of disease through the delivery of specific live microbes. However, there are limitations to their effectiveness since none have been approved for the prevention or treatment of any disease process. Via an intensive human subject study, (Cell. 2018 Sep 6;174[6]:1388-405) investigators have shown that the mucosally associated microbiota was a better biomarker for probiotic engraftment than stool was, where the response was very personalized. It’s possible that the personalized nature of probiotic engraftment may indicate that “one size may not fit all.” There will be a technical review and guideline document published by the American Gastroenterological Association early in 2020.

Currently, the only effective therapeutic modality for the treatment of a human disease by deeply altering the composition of the gut microbiota is the use of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). However, there is now early evidence that FMT might have efficacy in the treatment of a disease other than recurrent CDI, namely ulcerative colitis. Although the short-term risks for FMT are low and quantifiable and long-term risks are largely hypothetical, there is a need for caution and regulation in the practice of FMT. Indeed, long-term engraftment of bacterial strains from the donor into the recipient has been demonstrated. Ultimately, as the science in the microbiota field moves forward together with product development, more sophisticated microbiota-based therapeutics will be generated. During this interim period, the AGA and partner national societies have developed an FMT National Registry to gather information on FMT practice, assess effectiveness as well as short- and long-term safety, and promote scientific investigation.

In conclusion, the field of gut microbiome research is very dynamic and exciting with tremendous opportunities at the intersection between fabulous science and technology, clinical practice, and federal regulation involving the practice of FMT, concurrent in a significant interest in intellectual property and business.
 

Dr. Wu is the Ferdinand G. Weisbrod Professor in Gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He has received research funding from Seres Therapeutics, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; is on the scientific advisory board for Danone and Biocodex; and does consulting for Hitachi High-Technologies. Dr. Wu made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

A description of ulcerative colitis (UC) was first published by Wilkes in 1875. Infliximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Crohn’s disease (CD) in 1998, 123 years later. However, in the following 20 years, there were eight new biologic or small-molecule agents approved for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with dozens more in the pipeline. These new mechanisms of action include janus kinase (JAK) inhibition, sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor 1 modulation, anti-integrins, and inhibition of the p19 subunit of interleukin-23.

Unfortunately, the rapid increase in drugs and mechanisms of action have not come with a strong understanding of which agent is most appropriate for which patient. Recent studies have tried to address parts of this question. First, we must define what the endpoints of therapy are – endoscopy, histology, or patient-reported outcomes? Then we need to understand how to achieve these endpoints. Combined immunosuppression with infliximab and azathioprine was superior to each alone in the SONIC trial (N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1383-95). The CALM study (Lancet. 2018;390:2779-89) looked at clinical management (escalation in therapy for moderate to severe CD by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) and prednisone use versus a treat-to-target (T2T) approach which responded to C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin. The T2T approach was statistically more likely to achieve endoscopic response at week 48 (45.9% vs. 30.3%). Early immunosuppression is also more likely to reduce hospitalization and surgery rates as shown in the REACT Trial (Lancet 2015;386:1825-34). This year at Digestive Disease Week, we can also add the VARSITY trial (Abstract 416A) which was a head-to-head comparison of vedolizumab to adalimumab for UC. After induction and maintenance therapy, vedolizumab was statistically more likely to induce clinical remission at week 52 than adalimumab, suggesting vedolizumab should be preferred as the first-line biologic in moderate to severe outpatient UC, particularly given its excellent safety profile.

Ustekinumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for CD. At this year’s DDW we saw that it is effective for induction and maintenance of remission in UC (Abstract 833) as well, and also has an excellent safety profile. JAK inhibitors have shown significant efficacy for UC, and more selective agents with primarily JAK1 inhibition are in studies for CD and UC. Adverse events of interest have included herpes zoster and thromboembolic events. Research has also been focusing on out-of-the-box therapies including fecal microbiota transplant for UC, dietary interventions for induction and maintenance of remission in IBD, and allogenic mesenchymal stem cells for perianal fistulizing CD.

With all of this new therapy, are we actually modifying disease history and avoiding surgery? The answer to that seems to be “yes.” Edward L. Barnes, MD, and colleagues (Abstract 708) used an insurance dataset to show that the rate of colectomy for UC has been reduced significantly between 2007 and 2016. While this may be, in part, attributable to biologic therapy, certainly change in practice guidelines, awareness of complications such as C. difficile, and enhanced disease monitoring have also played a role. Surgery itself should not be viewed as a failure. A limited ileocecal resection is more cost effective with equal or better quality of life at 1 year, compared with infliximab therapy, per the randomized LiRIC trial (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:785-92).

Therapy is evolving at a rapid pace, while the disease itself is increasing in incidence and prevalence around the world. To truly manage this patient population, we need to have a population-based intervention (diet, predictive biomarkers, etc.) to help reduce the number of people developing IBD, and a better understanding of when and how to use the mechanisms of action we already have to achieve and maintain remission in patients with IBD.
 

Dr. Mahadevan is professor of medicine, University of California at San Francisco Center for Colitis and Crohn’s Disease. She has disclosed receiving grant or research support from Tigenix, Pfizer, Genentech, and Celgene and being a consultant for Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Lilly. Dr. Mahadevan made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

A description of ulcerative colitis (UC) was first published by Wilkes in 1875. Infliximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Crohn’s disease (CD) in 1998, 123 years later. However, in the following 20 years, there were eight new biologic or small-molecule agents approved for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with dozens more in the pipeline. These new mechanisms of action include janus kinase (JAK) inhibition, sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor 1 modulation, anti-integrins, and inhibition of the p19 subunit of interleukin-23.

Unfortunately, the rapid increase in drugs and mechanisms of action have not come with a strong understanding of which agent is most appropriate for which patient. Recent studies have tried to address parts of this question. First, we must define what the endpoints of therapy are – endoscopy, histology, or patient-reported outcomes? Then we need to understand how to achieve these endpoints. Combined immunosuppression with infliximab and azathioprine was superior to each alone in the SONIC trial (N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1383-95). The CALM study (Lancet. 2018;390:2779-89) looked at clinical management (escalation in therapy for moderate to severe CD by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) and prednisone use versus a treat-to-target (T2T) approach which responded to C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin. The T2T approach was statistically more likely to achieve endoscopic response at week 48 (45.9% vs. 30.3%). Early immunosuppression is also more likely to reduce hospitalization and surgery rates as shown in the REACT Trial (Lancet 2015;386:1825-34). This year at Digestive Disease Week, we can also add the VARSITY trial (Abstract 416A) which was a head-to-head comparison of vedolizumab to adalimumab for UC. After induction and maintenance therapy, vedolizumab was statistically more likely to induce clinical remission at week 52 than adalimumab, suggesting vedolizumab should be preferred as the first-line biologic in moderate to severe outpatient UC, particularly given its excellent safety profile.

Ustekinumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for CD. At this year’s DDW we saw that it is effective for induction and maintenance of remission in UC (Abstract 833) as well, and also has an excellent safety profile. JAK inhibitors have shown significant efficacy for UC, and more selective agents with primarily JAK1 inhibition are in studies for CD and UC. Adverse events of interest have included herpes zoster and thromboembolic events. Research has also been focusing on out-of-the-box therapies including fecal microbiota transplant for UC, dietary interventions for induction and maintenance of remission in IBD, and allogenic mesenchymal stem cells for perianal fistulizing CD.

With all of this new therapy, are we actually modifying disease history and avoiding surgery? The answer to that seems to be “yes.” Edward L. Barnes, MD, and colleagues (Abstract 708) used an insurance dataset to show that the rate of colectomy for UC has been reduced significantly between 2007 and 2016. While this may be, in part, attributable to biologic therapy, certainly change in practice guidelines, awareness of complications such as C. difficile, and enhanced disease monitoring have also played a role. Surgery itself should not be viewed as a failure. A limited ileocecal resection is more cost effective with equal or better quality of life at 1 year, compared with infliximab therapy, per the randomized LiRIC trial (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:785-92).

Therapy is evolving at a rapid pace, while the disease itself is increasing in incidence and prevalence around the world. To truly manage this patient population, we need to have a population-based intervention (diet, predictive biomarkers, etc.) to help reduce the number of people developing IBD, and a better understanding of when and how to use the mechanisms of action we already have to achieve and maintain remission in patients with IBD.
 

Dr. Mahadevan is professor of medicine, University of California at San Francisco Center for Colitis and Crohn’s Disease. She has disclosed receiving grant or research support from Tigenix, Pfizer, Genentech, and Celgene and being a consultant for Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Lilly. Dr. Mahadevan made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

A description of ulcerative colitis (UC) was first published by Wilkes in 1875. Infliximab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for Crohn’s disease (CD) in 1998, 123 years later. However, in the following 20 years, there were eight new biologic or small-molecule agents approved for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), with dozens more in the pipeline. These new mechanisms of action include janus kinase (JAK) inhibition, sphingosine 1 phosphate receptor 1 modulation, anti-integrins, and inhibition of the p19 subunit of interleukin-23.

Unfortunately, the rapid increase in drugs and mechanisms of action have not come with a strong understanding of which agent is most appropriate for which patient. Recent studies have tried to address parts of this question. First, we must define what the endpoints of therapy are – endoscopy, histology, or patient-reported outcomes? Then we need to understand how to achieve these endpoints. Combined immunosuppression with infliximab and azathioprine was superior to each alone in the SONIC trial (N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1383-95). The CALM study (Lancet. 2018;390:2779-89) looked at clinical management (escalation in therapy for moderate to severe CD by Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI]) and prednisone use versus a treat-to-target (T2T) approach which responded to C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin. The T2T approach was statistically more likely to achieve endoscopic response at week 48 (45.9% vs. 30.3%). Early immunosuppression is also more likely to reduce hospitalization and surgery rates as shown in the REACT Trial (Lancet 2015;386:1825-34). This year at Digestive Disease Week, we can also add the VARSITY trial (Abstract 416A) which was a head-to-head comparison of vedolizumab to adalimumab for UC. After induction and maintenance therapy, vedolizumab was statistically more likely to induce clinical remission at week 52 than adalimumab, suggesting vedolizumab should be preferred as the first-line biologic in moderate to severe outpatient UC, particularly given its excellent safety profile.

Ustekinumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for CD. At this year’s DDW we saw that it is effective for induction and maintenance of remission in UC (Abstract 833) as well, and also has an excellent safety profile. JAK inhibitors have shown significant efficacy for UC, and more selective agents with primarily JAK1 inhibition are in studies for CD and UC. Adverse events of interest have included herpes zoster and thromboembolic events. Research has also been focusing on out-of-the-box therapies including fecal microbiota transplant for UC, dietary interventions for induction and maintenance of remission in IBD, and allogenic mesenchymal stem cells for perianal fistulizing CD.

With all of this new therapy, are we actually modifying disease history and avoiding surgery? The answer to that seems to be “yes.” Edward L. Barnes, MD, and colleagues (Abstract 708) used an insurance dataset to show that the rate of colectomy for UC has been reduced significantly between 2007 and 2016. While this may be, in part, attributable to biologic therapy, certainly change in practice guidelines, awareness of complications such as C. difficile, and enhanced disease monitoring have also played a role. Surgery itself should not be viewed as a failure. A limited ileocecal resection is more cost effective with equal or better quality of life at 1 year, compared with infliximab therapy, per the randomized LiRIC trial (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;2:785-92).

Therapy is evolving at a rapid pace, while the disease itself is increasing in incidence and prevalence around the world. To truly manage this patient population, we need to have a population-based intervention (diet, predictive biomarkers, etc.) to help reduce the number of people developing IBD, and a better understanding of when and how to use the mechanisms of action we already have to achieve and maintain remission in patients with IBD.
 

Dr. Mahadevan is professor of medicine, University of California at San Francisco Center for Colitis and Crohn’s Disease. She has disclosed receiving grant or research support from Tigenix, Pfizer, Genentech, and Celgene and being a consultant for Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, and Lilly. Dr. Mahadevan made these comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.

SAN DIEGO – Eat a healthy lunch. Get more sleep. Move your body. How many times in the course of a week do you give patients gentle reminders to practice these most basic steps of self-care? And how many times in the course of a week do you allow these basics to go by the wayside for yourself?

Self-care is one of the elements that can defend against physician burnout, Carol Burke, MD, said at a session on physician burnout held during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®. Personal self-care can make a real difference, and shouldn’t be ignored as the profession works to reel back some of the institutional changes that challenge physicians today.

In the workplace, unhealthy stress levels can contribute to burnout, disruptive behavior, decreased productivity, and disengagement. Burnout – a response to chronic stress characterized by a diminished sense of personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion – can result in cynicism, a lack of compassion, and feelings of depersonalization, said Dr. Burke.

Contributors to physician stress have been well documented, said Dr. Burke, a professor of gastroenterology at the Cleveland Clinic. These range from personal debt and the struggle for work-life balance to an increased focus on metrics and documentation at the expense of authentic patient engagement. All of these factors are measurable by means of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, said Dr. Burke. A recent survey that used this measure indicated that nearly half of physician respondents report experiencing burnout.

In 2017, Dr. Burke led a survey of American College of Gastroenterology members that showed 49.3% of respondents reported feeling emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Some key themes emerged from the survey, she said. Women and younger physicians were more likely to experience burnout. Having children in the middle years (11-15 years old) and spending more time on domestic duties and child care increased the risk of burnout.

And doing patient-related work at home or having a spouse or partner bring work home also upped burnout risk. Skipping breakfast and lunch during the workweek was another risk factor, which highlights the importance of basic self-care as armor against the administrative onslaught, said Dr. Burke.

Measured by volume alone, physician work can be overwhelming: 45% of physicians in the United States work more than 60 hours weekly, compared with fewer than 10% of the general workforce, said Dr. Burke.

What factors within the control of an individual practitioner can reduce the risk of debilitating burnout and improve quality of life? Physicians who do report a high quality of life, said Dr. Burke, are more likely to have a positive outlook. They also practice basic self-care like taking vacations, exercising regularly, and engaging in hobbies outside of work.

For exhausted, overworked clinicians, getting a good night’s sleep is a critical form of self-care. But erratic schedules, stress, and family demands can all sabotage plans for better sleep hygiene. Still, attending to sleep is important, said Dr. Burke. Individuals with disturbed sleep are less mindful and have less self-compassion. Sleep disturbance is also strongly correlated with perceived stress.

She also reported that the odds ratio for burnout was 14.7 for physicians who reported insomnia when compared with those without sleep disturbance, and it was 9.9 for those who reported nonrestorative sleep.

Physical activity can help sleep and also help other markers of burnout. Dr. Burke pointed to a recent study of 4,402 medical students. Participants were able to reduce burnout risk when they met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of achieving at least 150 minutes/week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes/week of vigorous exercise, plus at least 2 days/week of strength training (P less than .001; Acad Med. 2017;92:1006).

These physician-targeted programs can work, she said: “Faciliated interventions improve well-being, attitudes associated with patient-centered care, meaning and engagement in work, and reduce burnout.”

Practice-focused interventions to reclaim a semblance of control over one’s time are varied, and some are easier to implement than others. Virtual visits and group visits are surprisingly well received by patients, and each can be huge time-savers for physicians, said Dr. Burke. There are billing and workflow pitfalls to avoid, but group visits, in particular, can be practice changing for those who have heavy backlogs and see many patients with the same condition.

Medical scribes can improve productivity and reduce physician time spent on documentation. Also, said Dr. Burke, visits can appropriately be billed at a higher level of complexity when contemporaneous documentation is thorough. Clinicians overall feel that they can engage more fully with patients, and also feel more effective, when well-trained scribes are integrated into a practice, she said.

Female physicians have repeatedly been shown to have patient panels that are more demanding, and male and female patients alike expect more empathy and social support from their physicians, said Dr. Burke. When psychosocial complexities are interwoven with patient care, as they are more frequently for female providers, a 15-minute visit can easily run twice that – or more. Dr. Burke is among the physicians advocating for recognition of this invisible burden on female clinicians, either through adaptive scheduling or differential productivity expectations. This approach is not without controversy, she acknowledged; still, practices should acknowledge that clinic flow can be very different for male and female gastroenterologists, she said.

Dr. Burke reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Read tips for how to balance family and personal lives with a professional career in order to avoid burnout at https://www.ddwnews.org/news/aga-symposium-provides-practical-tips-to-avoid-physician-burnout/.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Eat a healthy lunch. Get more sleep. Move your body. How many times in the course of a week do you give patients gentle reminders to practice these most basic steps of self-care? And how many times in the course of a week do you allow these basics to go by the wayside for yourself?

Self-care is one of the elements that can defend against physician burnout, Carol Burke, MD, said at a session on physician burnout held during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®. Personal self-care can make a real difference, and shouldn’t be ignored as the profession works to reel back some of the institutional changes that challenge physicians today.

In the workplace, unhealthy stress levels can contribute to burnout, disruptive behavior, decreased productivity, and disengagement. Burnout – a response to chronic stress characterized by a diminished sense of personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion – can result in cynicism, a lack of compassion, and feelings of depersonalization, said Dr. Burke.

Contributors to physician stress have been well documented, said Dr. Burke, a professor of gastroenterology at the Cleveland Clinic. These range from personal debt and the struggle for work-life balance to an increased focus on metrics and documentation at the expense of authentic patient engagement. All of these factors are measurable by means of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, said Dr. Burke. A recent survey that used this measure indicated that nearly half of physician respondents report experiencing burnout.

In 2017, Dr. Burke led a survey of American College of Gastroenterology members that showed 49.3% of respondents reported feeling emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Some key themes emerged from the survey, she said. Women and younger physicians were more likely to experience burnout. Having children in the middle years (11-15 years old) and spending more time on domestic duties and child care increased the risk of burnout.

And doing patient-related work at home or having a spouse or partner bring work home also upped burnout risk. Skipping breakfast and lunch during the workweek was another risk factor, which highlights the importance of basic self-care as armor against the administrative onslaught, said Dr. Burke.

Measured by volume alone, physician work can be overwhelming: 45% of physicians in the United States work more than 60 hours weekly, compared with fewer than 10% of the general workforce, said Dr. Burke.

What factors within the control of an individual practitioner can reduce the risk of debilitating burnout and improve quality of life? Physicians who do report a high quality of life, said Dr. Burke, are more likely to have a positive outlook. They also practice basic self-care like taking vacations, exercising regularly, and engaging in hobbies outside of work.

For exhausted, overworked clinicians, getting a good night’s sleep is a critical form of self-care. But erratic schedules, stress, and family demands can all sabotage plans for better sleep hygiene. Still, attending to sleep is important, said Dr. Burke. Individuals with disturbed sleep are less mindful and have less self-compassion. Sleep disturbance is also strongly correlated with perceived stress.

She also reported that the odds ratio for burnout was 14.7 for physicians who reported insomnia when compared with those without sleep disturbance, and it was 9.9 for those who reported nonrestorative sleep.

Physical activity can help sleep and also help other markers of burnout. Dr. Burke pointed to a recent study of 4,402 medical students. Participants were able to reduce burnout risk when they met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of achieving at least 150 minutes/week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes/week of vigorous exercise, plus at least 2 days/week of strength training (P less than .001; Acad Med. 2017;92:1006).

These physician-targeted programs can work, she said: “Faciliated interventions improve well-being, attitudes associated with patient-centered care, meaning and engagement in work, and reduce burnout.”

Practice-focused interventions to reclaim a semblance of control over one’s time are varied, and some are easier to implement than others. Virtual visits and group visits are surprisingly well received by patients, and each can be huge time-savers for physicians, said Dr. Burke. There are billing and workflow pitfalls to avoid, but group visits, in particular, can be practice changing for those who have heavy backlogs and see many patients with the same condition.

Medical scribes can improve productivity and reduce physician time spent on documentation. Also, said Dr. Burke, visits can appropriately be billed at a higher level of complexity when contemporaneous documentation is thorough. Clinicians overall feel that they can engage more fully with patients, and also feel more effective, when well-trained scribes are integrated into a practice, she said.

Female physicians have repeatedly been shown to have patient panels that are more demanding, and male and female patients alike expect more empathy and social support from their physicians, said Dr. Burke. When psychosocial complexities are interwoven with patient care, as they are more frequently for female providers, a 15-minute visit can easily run twice that – or more. Dr. Burke is among the physicians advocating for recognition of this invisible burden on female clinicians, either through adaptive scheduling or differential productivity expectations. This approach is not without controversy, she acknowledged; still, practices should acknowledge that clinic flow can be very different for male and female gastroenterologists, she said.

Dr. Burke reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Read tips for how to balance family and personal lives with a professional career in order to avoid burnout at https://www.ddwnews.org/news/aga-symposium-provides-practical-tips-to-avoid-physician-burnout/.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Eat a healthy lunch. Get more sleep. Move your body. How many times in the course of a week do you give patients gentle reminders to practice these most basic steps of self-care? And how many times in the course of a week do you allow these basics to go by the wayside for yourself?

Self-care is one of the elements that can defend against physician burnout, Carol Burke, MD, said at a session on physician burnout held during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®. Personal self-care can make a real difference, and shouldn’t be ignored as the profession works to reel back some of the institutional changes that challenge physicians today.

In the workplace, unhealthy stress levels can contribute to burnout, disruptive behavior, decreased productivity, and disengagement. Burnout – a response to chronic stress characterized by a diminished sense of personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion – can result in cynicism, a lack of compassion, and feelings of depersonalization, said Dr. Burke.

Contributors to physician stress have been well documented, said Dr. Burke, a professor of gastroenterology at the Cleveland Clinic. These range from personal debt and the struggle for work-life balance to an increased focus on metrics and documentation at the expense of authentic patient engagement. All of these factors are measurable by means of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, said Dr. Burke. A recent survey that used this measure indicated that nearly half of physician respondents report experiencing burnout.

In 2017, Dr. Burke led a survey of American College of Gastroenterology members that showed 49.3% of respondents reported feeling emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Some key themes emerged from the survey, she said. Women and younger physicians were more likely to experience burnout. Having children in the middle years (11-15 years old) and spending more time on domestic duties and child care increased the risk of burnout.

And doing patient-related work at home or having a spouse or partner bring work home also upped burnout risk. Skipping breakfast and lunch during the workweek was another risk factor, which highlights the importance of basic self-care as armor against the administrative onslaught, said Dr. Burke.

Measured by volume alone, physician work can be overwhelming: 45% of physicians in the United States work more than 60 hours weekly, compared with fewer than 10% of the general workforce, said Dr. Burke.

What factors within the control of an individual practitioner can reduce the risk of debilitating burnout and improve quality of life? Physicians who do report a high quality of life, said Dr. Burke, are more likely to have a positive outlook. They also practice basic self-care like taking vacations, exercising regularly, and engaging in hobbies outside of work.

For exhausted, overworked clinicians, getting a good night’s sleep is a critical form of self-care. But erratic schedules, stress, and family demands can all sabotage plans for better sleep hygiene. Still, attending to sleep is important, said Dr. Burke. Individuals with disturbed sleep are less mindful and have less self-compassion. Sleep disturbance is also strongly correlated with perceived stress.

She also reported that the odds ratio for burnout was 14.7 for physicians who reported insomnia when compared with those without sleep disturbance, and it was 9.9 for those who reported nonrestorative sleep.

Physical activity can help sleep and also help other markers of burnout. Dr. Burke pointed to a recent study of 4,402 medical students. Participants were able to reduce burnout risk when they met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of achieving at least 150 minutes/week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes/week of vigorous exercise, plus at least 2 days/week of strength training (P less than .001; Acad Med. 2017;92:1006).

These physician-targeted programs can work, she said: “Faciliated interventions improve well-being, attitudes associated with patient-centered care, meaning and engagement in work, and reduce burnout.”

Practice-focused interventions to reclaim a semblance of control over one’s time are varied, and some are easier to implement than others. Virtual visits and group visits are surprisingly well received by patients, and each can be huge time-savers for physicians, said Dr. Burke. There are billing and workflow pitfalls to avoid, but group visits, in particular, can be practice changing for those who have heavy backlogs and see many patients with the same condition.

Medical scribes can improve productivity and reduce physician time spent on documentation. Also, said Dr. Burke, visits can appropriately be billed at a higher level of complexity when contemporaneous documentation is thorough. Clinicians overall feel that they can engage more fully with patients, and also feel more effective, when well-trained scribes are integrated into a practice, she said.

Female physicians have repeatedly been shown to have patient panels that are more demanding, and male and female patients alike expect more empathy and social support from their physicians, said Dr. Burke. When psychosocial complexities are interwoven with patient care, as they are more frequently for female providers, a 15-minute visit can easily run twice that – or more. Dr. Burke is among the physicians advocating for recognition of this invisible burden on female clinicians, either through adaptive scheduling or differential productivity expectations. This approach is not without controversy, she acknowledged; still, practices should acknowledge that clinic flow can be very different for male and female gastroenterologists, she said.

Dr. Burke reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Read tips for how to balance family and personal lives with a professional career in order to avoid burnout at https://www.ddwnews.org/news/aga-symposium-provides-practical-tips-to-avoid-physician-burnout/.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Eat a healthy lunch. Get more sleep. Move your body. How many times in the course of a week do you give patients gentle reminders to practice these most basic steps of self-care? And how many times in the course of a week do you allow these basics to go by the wayside for yourself?

Self-care is one of the elements that can defend against physician burnout, Carol Burke, MD, said at a session on physician burnout held during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®. Personal self-care can make a real difference, and shouldn’t be ignored as the profession works to reel back some of the institutional changes that challenge physicians today.

In the workplace, unhealthy stress levels can contribute to burnout, disruptive behavior, decreased productivity, and disengagement. Burnout – a response to chronic stress characterized by a diminished sense of personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion – can result in cynicism, a lack of compassion, and feelings of depersonalization, said Dr. Burke.

Contributors to physician stress have been well documented, said Dr. Burke, a professor of gastroenterology at the Cleveland Clinic. These range from personal debt and the struggle for work-life balance to an increased focus on metrics and documentation at the expense of authentic patient engagement. All of these factors are measurable by means of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, said Dr. Burke. A recent survey that used this measure indicated that nearly half of physician respondents report experiencing burnout.

In 2017, Dr. Burke led a survey of American College of Gastroenterology members that showed 49.3% of respondents reported feeling emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Some key themes emerged from the survey, she said. Women and younger physicians were more likely to experience burnout. Having children in the middle years (11-15 years old) and spending more time on domestic duties and child care increased the risk of burnout.

And doing patient-related work at home or having a spouse or partner bring work home also upped burnout risk. Skipping breakfast and lunch during the workweek was another risk factor, which highlights the importance of basic self-care as armor against the administrative onslaught, said Dr. Burke.

Measured by volume alone, physician work can be overwhelming: 45% of physicians in the United States work more than 60 hours weekly, compared with fewer than 10% of the general workforce, said Dr. Burke.

What factors within the control of an individual practitioner can reduce the risk of debilitating burnout and improve quality of life? Physicians who do report a high quality of life, said Dr. Burke, are more likely to have a positive outlook. They also practice basic self-care like taking vacations, exercising regularly, and engaging in hobbies outside of work.

For exhausted, overworked clinicians, getting a good night’s sleep is a critical form of self-care. But erratic schedules, stress, and family demands can all sabotage plans for better sleep hygiene. Still, attending to sleep is important, said Dr. Burke. Individuals with disturbed sleep are less mindful and have less self-compassion. Sleep disturbance is also strongly correlated with perceived stress.

She also reported that the odds ratio for burnout was 14.7 for physicians who reported insomnia when compared with those without sleep disturbance, and it was 9.9 for those who reported nonrestorative sleep.

Physical activity can help sleep and also help other markers of burnout. Dr. Burke pointed to a recent study of 4,402 medical students. Participants were able to reduce burnout risk when they met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of achieving at least 150 minutes/week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes/week of vigorous exercise, plus at least 2 days/week of strength training (P less than .001; Acad Med. 2017;92:1006).

These physician-targeted programs can work, she said: “Faciliated interventions improve well-being, attitudes associated with patient-centered care, meaning and engagement in work, and reduce burnout.”

Practice-focused interventions to reclaim a semblance of control over one’s time are varied, and some are easier to implement than others. Virtual visits and group visits are surprisingly well received by patients, and each can be huge time-savers for physicians, said Dr. Burke. There are billing and workflow pitfalls to avoid, but group visits, in particular, can be practice changing for those who have heavy backlogs and see many patients with the same condition.

Medical scribes can improve productivity and reduce physician time spent on documentation. Also, said Dr. Burke, visits can appropriately be billed at a higher level of complexity when contemporaneous documentation is thorough. Clinicians overall feel that they can engage more fully with patients, and also feel more effective, when well-trained scribes are integrated into a practice, she said.

Female physicians have repeatedly been shown to have patient panels that are more demanding, and male and female patients alike expect more empathy and social support from their physicians, said Dr. Burke. When psychosocial complexities are interwoven with patient care, as they are more frequently for female providers, a 15-minute visit can easily run twice that – or more. Dr. Burke is among the physicians advocating for recognition of this invisible burden on female clinicians, either through adaptive scheduling or differential productivity expectations. This approach is not without controversy, she acknowledged; still, practices should acknowledge that clinic flow can be very different for male and female gastroenterologists, she said.

Dr. Burke reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Eat a healthy lunch. Get more sleep. Move your body. How many times in the course of a week do you give patients gentle reminders to practice these most basic steps of self-care? And how many times in the course of a week do you allow these basics to go by the wayside for yourself?

Self-care is one of the elements that can defend against physician burnout, Carol Burke, MD, said at a session on physician burnout held during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®. Personal self-care can make a real difference, and shouldn’t be ignored as the profession works to reel back some of the institutional changes that challenge physicians today.

In the workplace, unhealthy stress levels can contribute to burnout, disruptive behavior, decreased productivity, and disengagement. Burnout – a response to chronic stress characterized by a diminished sense of personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion – can result in cynicism, a lack of compassion, and feelings of depersonalization, said Dr. Burke.

Contributors to physician stress have been well documented, said Dr. Burke, a professor of gastroenterology at the Cleveland Clinic. These range from personal debt and the struggle for work-life balance to an increased focus on metrics and documentation at the expense of authentic patient engagement. All of these factors are measurable by means of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, said Dr. Burke. A recent survey that used this measure indicated that nearly half of physician respondents report experiencing burnout.

In 2017, Dr. Burke led a survey of American College of Gastroenterology members that showed 49.3% of respondents reported feeling emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Some key themes emerged from the survey, she said. Women and younger physicians were more likely to experience burnout. Having children in the middle years (11-15 years old) and spending more time on domestic duties and child care increased the risk of burnout.

And doing patient-related work at home or having a spouse or partner bring work home also upped burnout risk. Skipping breakfast and lunch during the workweek was another risk factor, which highlights the importance of basic self-care as armor against the administrative onslaught, said Dr. Burke.

Measured by volume alone, physician work can be overwhelming: 45% of physicians in the United States work more than 60 hours weekly, compared with fewer than 10% of the general workforce, said Dr. Burke.

What factors within the control of an individual practitioner can reduce the risk of debilitating burnout and improve quality of life? Physicians who do report a high quality of life, said Dr. Burke, are more likely to have a positive outlook. They also practice basic self-care like taking vacations, exercising regularly, and engaging in hobbies outside of work.

For exhausted, overworked clinicians, getting a good night’s sleep is a critical form of self-care. But erratic schedules, stress, and family demands can all sabotage plans for better sleep hygiene. Still, attending to sleep is important, said Dr. Burke. Individuals with disturbed sleep are less mindful and have less self-compassion. Sleep disturbance is also strongly correlated with perceived stress.

She also reported that the odds ratio for burnout was 14.7 for physicians who reported insomnia when compared with those without sleep disturbance, and it was 9.9 for those who reported nonrestorative sleep.

Physical activity can help sleep and also help other markers of burnout. Dr. Burke pointed to a recent study of 4,402 medical students. Participants were able to reduce burnout risk when they met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of achieving at least 150 minutes/week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes/week of vigorous exercise, plus at least 2 days/week of strength training (P less than .001; Acad Med. 2017;92:1006).

These physician-targeted programs can work, she said: “Faciliated interventions improve well-being, attitudes associated with patient-centered care, meaning and engagement in work, and reduce burnout.”

Practice-focused interventions to reclaim a semblance of control over one’s time are varied, and some are easier to implement than others. Virtual visits and group visits are surprisingly well received by patients, and each can be huge time-savers for physicians, said Dr. Burke. There are billing and workflow pitfalls to avoid, but group visits, in particular, can be practice changing for those who have heavy backlogs and see many patients with the same condition.

Medical scribes can improve productivity and reduce physician time spent on documentation. Also, said Dr. Burke, visits can appropriately be billed at a higher level of complexity when contemporaneous documentation is thorough. Clinicians overall feel that they can engage more fully with patients, and also feel more effective, when well-trained scribes are integrated into a practice, she said.

Female physicians have repeatedly been shown to have patient panels that are more demanding, and male and female patients alike expect more empathy and social support from their physicians, said Dr. Burke. When psychosocial complexities are interwoven with patient care, as they are more frequently for female providers, a 15-minute visit can easily run twice that – or more. Dr. Burke is among the physicians advocating for recognition of this invisible burden on female clinicians, either through adaptive scheduling or differential productivity expectations. This approach is not without controversy, she acknowledged; still, practices should acknowledge that clinic flow can be very different for male and female gastroenterologists, she said.

Dr. Burke reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Eat a healthy lunch. Get more sleep. Move your body. How many times in the course of a week do you give patients gentle reminders to practice these most basic steps of self-care? And how many times in the course of a week do you allow these basics to go by the wayside for yourself?

Self-care is one of the elements that can defend against physician burnout, Carol Burke, MD, said at a session on physician burnout held during the annual Digestive Disease Week^®. Personal self-care can make a real difference, and shouldn’t be ignored as the profession works to reel back some of the institutional changes that challenge physicians today.

In the workplace, unhealthy stress levels can contribute to burnout, disruptive behavior, decreased productivity, and disengagement. Burnout – a response to chronic stress characterized by a diminished sense of personal accomplishment and emotional exhaustion – can result in cynicism, a lack of compassion, and feelings of depersonalization, said Dr. Burke.

Contributors to physician stress have been well documented, said Dr. Burke, a professor of gastroenterology at the Cleveland Clinic. These range from personal debt and the struggle for work-life balance to an increased focus on metrics and documentation at the expense of authentic patient engagement. All of these factors are measurable by means of the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory, said Dr. Burke. A recent survey that used this measure indicated that nearly half of physician respondents report experiencing burnout.

In 2017, Dr. Burke led a survey of American College of Gastroenterology members that showed 49.3% of respondents reported feeling emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization. Some key themes emerged from the survey, she said. Women and younger physicians were more likely to experience burnout. Having children in the middle years (11-15 years old) and spending more time on domestic duties and child care increased the risk of burnout.

And doing patient-related work at home or having a spouse or partner bring work home also upped burnout risk. Skipping breakfast and lunch during the workweek was another risk factor, which highlights the importance of basic self-care as armor against the administrative onslaught, said Dr. Burke.

Measured by volume alone, physician work can be overwhelming: 45% of physicians in the United States work more than 60 hours weekly, compared with fewer than 10% of the general workforce, said Dr. Burke.

What factors within the control of an individual practitioner can reduce the risk of debilitating burnout and improve quality of life? Physicians who do report a high quality of life, said Dr. Burke, are more likely to have a positive outlook. They also practice basic self-care like taking vacations, exercising regularly, and engaging in hobbies outside of work.

For exhausted, overworked clinicians, getting a good night’s sleep is a critical form of self-care. But erratic schedules, stress, and family demands can all sabotage plans for better sleep hygiene. Still, attending to sleep is important, said Dr. Burke. Individuals with disturbed sleep are less mindful and have less self-compassion. Sleep disturbance is also strongly correlated with perceived stress.

She also reported that the odds ratio for burnout was 14.7 for physicians who reported insomnia when compared with those without sleep disturbance, and it was 9.9 for those who reported nonrestorative sleep.

Physical activity can help sleep and also help other markers of burnout. Dr. Burke pointed to a recent study of 4,402 medical students. Participants were able to reduce burnout risk when they met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations of achieving at least 150 minutes/week of moderate exercise or 75 minutes/week of vigorous exercise, plus at least 2 days/week of strength training (P less than .001; Acad Med. 2017;92:1006).

These physician-targeted programs can work, she said: “Faciliated interventions improve well-being, attitudes associated with patient-centered care, meaning and engagement in work, and reduce burnout.”

Practice-focused interventions to reclaim a semblance of control over one’s time are varied, and some are easier to implement than others. Virtual visits and group visits are surprisingly well received by patients, and each can be huge time-savers for physicians, said Dr. Burke. There are billing and workflow pitfalls to avoid, but group visits, in particular, can be practice changing for those who have heavy backlogs and see many patients with the same condition.

Medical scribes can improve productivity and reduce physician time spent on documentation. Also, said Dr. Burke, visits can appropriately be billed at a higher level of complexity when contemporaneous documentation is thorough. Clinicians overall feel that they can engage more fully with patients, and also feel more effective, when well-trained scribes are integrated into a practice, she said.

Female physicians have repeatedly been shown to have patient panels that are more demanding, and male and female patients alike expect more empathy and social support from their physicians, said Dr. Burke. When psychosocial complexities are interwoven with patient care, as they are more frequently for female providers, a 15-minute visit can easily run twice that – or more. Dr. Burke is among the physicians advocating for recognition of this invisible burden on female clinicians, either through adaptive scheduling or differential productivity expectations. This approach is not without controversy, she acknowledged; still, practices should acknowledge that clinic flow can be very different for male and female gastroenterologists, she said.

Dr. Burke reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com