User login
IgG4-related disease can strike any organ system
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Progress in the understanding and treatment of immunoglobulin G4–related disease is occurring “at lightning speed,” John H. Stone, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
Eight or nine years ago no one had heard of immunoglobulin G4–related disease (IgG4-RD). Today, because of the broad swath the disease cuts, it’s a hot research topic in every subspecialty of medicine as well as surgery, pathology, and radiology.
This new understanding of IgG4-RD, he added, is opening the door to novel treatments.
“This is not a new disease. It was there when we were all in medical school, and for hundreds of years before that. But it’s really only in the last decade that we have come to understand that the disease can affect literally every organ system in the body with syndromes that we once thought were isolated organ-specific syndromes but we now recognize are part of a multiorgan disease currently called IgG4-related disease,” the rheumatologist said.
IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated fibroinflammatory condition characterized histopathologically by three hallmark features in involved tissue: obliterative phlebitis, storiform fibrosis, and a dense lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate.
Clinically, IgG4-RD often presents as a mass lesion that can affect any organ.
“I have many patients who’ve undergone modified Whipple procedures because they were thought to have adenocarcinoma of the pancreas,” according to Dr. Stone.
Other common presentations include Riedel’s thyroiditis, autoimmune pancreatitis, sclerosing cholangitis, sialadenitis, dacryoadenitis, periaortitis, an eosinophilic rash, and pseudotumor of the lung, lymph nodes, or orbits.
“Retroperitoneal fibrosis is a common and underappreciated manifestation. It may be the most common subsyndrome associated with IgG4-related disease,” he observed.
Another common presentation involves atopic disease – asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, eosinophilia, nasal polyps – developing out of the blue in middle age or later life. This observation led some other investigators to posit that IgG4-RD is a T-helper type 2–driven disease, an assertion debunked by Dr. Stone and coworkers (Allergy. 2014 Feb;69[2]:269-72).
Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators have published the largest series of patients with biopsy-proven IgG4-RD reported to date (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Sep; 67[9]:2466-75). The average age at disease onset was 50 years. Of note, multiorgan involvement was the norm: 24% of patients had two organs involved, and 38% had three or more.
Analysis of this large patient series has led Dr. Stone to a surprising conclusion about the nature of IgG4-RD: “We have greatly overemphasized the importance of IgG4 in this condition,” he asserted.
Indeed, a mere 51% of the patients with clinically active untreated IgG4-RD in his series had an elevated serum IgG level. Dr. Stone characterized IgG4 as “kind of a wimpy antibody” incapable of driving the disease process because it is a noninflammatory immunoglobulin. This has led to speculation that IgG4 functions as what he termed an “antigen sink,” attempting to bind antigen at sites of inflammation.
But while an elevated serum IgG4 is of limited utility for diagnostic purposes, Dr. Stone and coworkers have demonstrated that it is of value as a predictor of relapse. Among patients with a treatment-induced remission, those in the top quartile in terms of baseline pretreatment serum IgG4 were 6.2-fold more likely to relapse (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2016 Jun;55[6]:1000-8).
“This is a very useful marker for patients who are going to need chronic ongoing therapy. The notion of putting such patients on steroids for months and years is not appealing,” he said.
Levels of circulating plasmablasts as measured by peripheral blood flow cytometry, especially IgG4-positive plasmablasts, have proven much more helpful than serum IgG4 levels as a diagnostic tool, a reliable biomarker of disease activity, and a therapeutic target. Levels of these short-lived CD19+CD38+CD27+ plasmablasts are enormously elevated independent of serum IgG4 in patients with active IgG4-RD.
“One of the questions I’m most often asked is whether IgG4-related disease is a premalignant condition. My answer is no. The plasmablast expansion is oligoclonal, not polyclonal,” Dr. Stone continued.
He described IgG4-RD as “a continuous dance between T cells and B cells.” The latest thinking regarding pathogenesis is that type 2 T follicular helper cells activate B cells, which become memory B cells or plasmablasts. These activated B cells and plasmablasts present antigen to CD4+ cytotoxic T cells at sites of disease. Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators recently identified these CD4+ cytotoxic T cells as a novel population of clonally expanded T cells with SLAMF7 as a surface marker. The cells secrete interferon-gamma, interleukin-1, and transforming growth factor-beta, all of which are capable of driving the intense fibrosis characteristic of IgG4-RD. In addition, these CD4+ cytotoxic T cells secrete granzyme B and perforin, previously thought to be released mainly by natural killer T cells.
Joint American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for the disease are expected to be finalized this winter at the Third International Symposium on IgG4-Related Diseases.
Treatment with rituxumab
Glucocorticoids remain the first-line therapy in IgG4-related disease, but it’s essential to bear in mind that their long-term efficacy in this immune-mediated fibroinflammatory disease is the exception rather than the rule, Dr. Stone said at the symposium.
Dr. Stone was a coauthor of an international expert consensus statement on the treatment of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD), which emphasized that point (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;67[7]:1688-99).
“I typically start with prednisone at 40 mg/day, and there’s a dramatic response in these patients. Then I taper them off after 2-3 months. If 2-3 months doesn’t put them into a long-term sustained remission, it’s time to go to something else,” said Dr. Stone.
So what’s the next move, then, after steroids fail? Dr. Stone was a pioneer in the strikingly successful use of B cell depletion via rituximab (Rituxan) in patients with IgG4-RD. First he and his coinvestigators demonstrated that this off-label use of rituximab led to rapid clinical and histologic improvement (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jun; 74[6]:1171-7), then they showed it also causes levels of circulating plasmablasts, serum IgG4, and biomarkers of fibrosis to plunge, suggesting B cell depletion may halt the destructive process of collagen deposition that characterizes this immune-related disease (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Dec;74[12]:2236-43). They have also reported that patients with very elevated baseline serum IgG4 levels are at more than sixfold increased risk of relapse at a median of 244 days from their first rituximab infusion (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2016 Jun;55[6]:1000-8).
The success with rituximab is just one example of how improved understanding of the pathophysiology of IgG4-RD has opened the door to novel treatments. Dr. Stone is the lead investigator in an ongoing phase II, open-label study in which 15 patients with active IgG4-RD will receive intravenous XmAb5871 every 2 weeks for 6 months to evaluate the effect on the IgG4-RD Responder Index. XmAb5871 is a monoclonal antibody that binds to CD19 and FCgammaRIIb in order to downregulate activated B cells and plasmablasts. It is also being developed for treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators are working on a therapeutic approach to IgG4-RD that targets antigen presentation by activated B cells to CD4+ cytotoxic T cells at sites of disease. These CD4+ cytotoxic T cells contain signaling lymphocyte activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) as a surface marker. Elotuzumab (Empliciti), an immunostimulatory humanized monoclonal antibody targeting SLAMF7, is already on the market for treatment of multiple myeloma, he noted.
Dr. Stone reported receiving IgG4-RD-related research funding from and serving as a consultant to Genentech and Xencor, which is developing XmAb5871.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Progress in the understanding and treatment of immunoglobulin G4–related disease is occurring “at lightning speed,” John H. Stone, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
Eight or nine years ago no one had heard of immunoglobulin G4–related disease (IgG4-RD). Today, because of the broad swath the disease cuts, it’s a hot research topic in every subspecialty of medicine as well as surgery, pathology, and radiology.
This new understanding of IgG4-RD, he added, is opening the door to novel treatments.
“This is not a new disease. It was there when we were all in medical school, and for hundreds of years before that. But it’s really only in the last decade that we have come to understand that the disease can affect literally every organ system in the body with syndromes that we once thought were isolated organ-specific syndromes but we now recognize are part of a multiorgan disease currently called IgG4-related disease,” the rheumatologist said.
IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated fibroinflammatory condition characterized histopathologically by three hallmark features in involved tissue: obliterative phlebitis, storiform fibrosis, and a dense lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate.
Clinically, IgG4-RD often presents as a mass lesion that can affect any organ.
“I have many patients who’ve undergone modified Whipple procedures because they were thought to have adenocarcinoma of the pancreas,” according to Dr. Stone.
Other common presentations include Riedel’s thyroiditis, autoimmune pancreatitis, sclerosing cholangitis, sialadenitis, dacryoadenitis, periaortitis, an eosinophilic rash, and pseudotumor of the lung, lymph nodes, or orbits.
“Retroperitoneal fibrosis is a common and underappreciated manifestation. It may be the most common subsyndrome associated with IgG4-related disease,” he observed.
Another common presentation involves atopic disease – asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, eosinophilia, nasal polyps – developing out of the blue in middle age or later life. This observation led some other investigators to posit that IgG4-RD is a T-helper type 2–driven disease, an assertion debunked by Dr. Stone and coworkers (Allergy. 2014 Feb;69[2]:269-72).
Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators have published the largest series of patients with biopsy-proven IgG4-RD reported to date (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Sep; 67[9]:2466-75). The average age at disease onset was 50 years. Of note, multiorgan involvement was the norm: 24% of patients had two organs involved, and 38% had three or more.
Analysis of this large patient series has led Dr. Stone to a surprising conclusion about the nature of IgG4-RD: “We have greatly overemphasized the importance of IgG4 in this condition,” he asserted.
Indeed, a mere 51% of the patients with clinically active untreated IgG4-RD in his series had an elevated serum IgG level. Dr. Stone characterized IgG4 as “kind of a wimpy antibody” incapable of driving the disease process because it is a noninflammatory immunoglobulin. This has led to speculation that IgG4 functions as what he termed an “antigen sink,” attempting to bind antigen at sites of inflammation.
But while an elevated serum IgG4 is of limited utility for diagnostic purposes, Dr. Stone and coworkers have demonstrated that it is of value as a predictor of relapse. Among patients with a treatment-induced remission, those in the top quartile in terms of baseline pretreatment serum IgG4 were 6.2-fold more likely to relapse (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2016 Jun;55[6]:1000-8).
“This is a very useful marker for patients who are going to need chronic ongoing therapy. The notion of putting such patients on steroids for months and years is not appealing,” he said.
Levels of circulating plasmablasts as measured by peripheral blood flow cytometry, especially IgG4-positive plasmablasts, have proven much more helpful than serum IgG4 levels as a diagnostic tool, a reliable biomarker of disease activity, and a therapeutic target. Levels of these short-lived CD19+CD38+CD27+ plasmablasts are enormously elevated independent of serum IgG4 in patients with active IgG4-RD.
“One of the questions I’m most often asked is whether IgG4-related disease is a premalignant condition. My answer is no. The plasmablast expansion is oligoclonal, not polyclonal,” Dr. Stone continued.
He described IgG4-RD as “a continuous dance between T cells and B cells.” The latest thinking regarding pathogenesis is that type 2 T follicular helper cells activate B cells, which become memory B cells or plasmablasts. These activated B cells and plasmablasts present antigen to CD4+ cytotoxic T cells at sites of disease. Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators recently identified these CD4+ cytotoxic T cells as a novel population of clonally expanded T cells with SLAMF7 as a surface marker. The cells secrete interferon-gamma, interleukin-1, and transforming growth factor-beta, all of which are capable of driving the intense fibrosis characteristic of IgG4-RD. In addition, these CD4+ cytotoxic T cells secrete granzyme B and perforin, previously thought to be released mainly by natural killer T cells.
Joint American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for the disease are expected to be finalized this winter at the Third International Symposium on IgG4-Related Diseases.
Treatment with rituxumab
Glucocorticoids remain the first-line therapy in IgG4-related disease, but it’s essential to bear in mind that their long-term efficacy in this immune-mediated fibroinflammatory disease is the exception rather than the rule, Dr. Stone said at the symposium.
Dr. Stone was a coauthor of an international expert consensus statement on the treatment of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD), which emphasized that point (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;67[7]:1688-99).
“I typically start with prednisone at 40 mg/day, and there’s a dramatic response in these patients. Then I taper them off after 2-3 months. If 2-3 months doesn’t put them into a long-term sustained remission, it’s time to go to something else,” said Dr. Stone.
So what’s the next move, then, after steroids fail? Dr. Stone was a pioneer in the strikingly successful use of B cell depletion via rituximab (Rituxan) in patients with IgG4-RD. First he and his coinvestigators demonstrated that this off-label use of rituximab led to rapid clinical and histologic improvement (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jun; 74[6]:1171-7), then they showed it also causes levels of circulating plasmablasts, serum IgG4, and biomarkers of fibrosis to plunge, suggesting B cell depletion may halt the destructive process of collagen deposition that characterizes this immune-related disease (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Dec;74[12]:2236-43). They have also reported that patients with very elevated baseline serum IgG4 levels are at more than sixfold increased risk of relapse at a median of 244 days from their first rituximab infusion (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2016 Jun;55[6]:1000-8).
The success with rituximab is just one example of how improved understanding of the pathophysiology of IgG4-RD has opened the door to novel treatments. Dr. Stone is the lead investigator in an ongoing phase II, open-label study in which 15 patients with active IgG4-RD will receive intravenous XmAb5871 every 2 weeks for 6 months to evaluate the effect on the IgG4-RD Responder Index. XmAb5871 is a monoclonal antibody that binds to CD19 and FCgammaRIIb in order to downregulate activated B cells and plasmablasts. It is also being developed for treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators are working on a therapeutic approach to IgG4-RD that targets antigen presentation by activated B cells to CD4+ cytotoxic T cells at sites of disease. These CD4+ cytotoxic T cells contain signaling lymphocyte activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) as a surface marker. Elotuzumab (Empliciti), an immunostimulatory humanized monoclonal antibody targeting SLAMF7, is already on the market for treatment of multiple myeloma, he noted.
Dr. Stone reported receiving IgG4-RD-related research funding from and serving as a consultant to Genentech and Xencor, which is developing XmAb5871.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Progress in the understanding and treatment of immunoglobulin G4–related disease is occurring “at lightning speed,” John H. Stone, MD, said at the Winter Rheumatology Symposium sponsored by the American College of Rheumatology.
Eight or nine years ago no one had heard of immunoglobulin G4–related disease (IgG4-RD). Today, because of the broad swath the disease cuts, it’s a hot research topic in every subspecialty of medicine as well as surgery, pathology, and radiology.
This new understanding of IgG4-RD, he added, is opening the door to novel treatments.
“This is not a new disease. It was there when we were all in medical school, and for hundreds of years before that. But it’s really only in the last decade that we have come to understand that the disease can affect literally every organ system in the body with syndromes that we once thought were isolated organ-specific syndromes but we now recognize are part of a multiorgan disease currently called IgG4-related disease,” the rheumatologist said.
IgG4-RD is an immune-mediated fibroinflammatory condition characterized histopathologically by three hallmark features in involved tissue: obliterative phlebitis, storiform fibrosis, and a dense lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate.
Clinically, IgG4-RD often presents as a mass lesion that can affect any organ.
“I have many patients who’ve undergone modified Whipple procedures because they were thought to have adenocarcinoma of the pancreas,” according to Dr. Stone.
Other common presentations include Riedel’s thyroiditis, autoimmune pancreatitis, sclerosing cholangitis, sialadenitis, dacryoadenitis, periaortitis, an eosinophilic rash, and pseudotumor of the lung, lymph nodes, or orbits.
“Retroperitoneal fibrosis is a common and underappreciated manifestation. It may be the most common subsyndrome associated with IgG4-related disease,” he observed.
Another common presentation involves atopic disease – asthma, allergic rhinitis, eczema, eosinophilia, nasal polyps – developing out of the blue in middle age or later life. This observation led some other investigators to posit that IgG4-RD is a T-helper type 2–driven disease, an assertion debunked by Dr. Stone and coworkers (Allergy. 2014 Feb;69[2]:269-72).
Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators have published the largest series of patients with biopsy-proven IgG4-RD reported to date (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Sep; 67[9]:2466-75). The average age at disease onset was 50 years. Of note, multiorgan involvement was the norm: 24% of patients had two organs involved, and 38% had three or more.
Analysis of this large patient series has led Dr. Stone to a surprising conclusion about the nature of IgG4-RD: “We have greatly overemphasized the importance of IgG4 in this condition,” he asserted.
Indeed, a mere 51% of the patients with clinically active untreated IgG4-RD in his series had an elevated serum IgG level. Dr. Stone characterized IgG4 as “kind of a wimpy antibody” incapable of driving the disease process because it is a noninflammatory immunoglobulin. This has led to speculation that IgG4 functions as what he termed an “antigen sink,” attempting to bind antigen at sites of inflammation.
But while an elevated serum IgG4 is of limited utility for diagnostic purposes, Dr. Stone and coworkers have demonstrated that it is of value as a predictor of relapse. Among patients with a treatment-induced remission, those in the top quartile in terms of baseline pretreatment serum IgG4 were 6.2-fold more likely to relapse (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2016 Jun;55[6]:1000-8).
“This is a very useful marker for patients who are going to need chronic ongoing therapy. The notion of putting such patients on steroids for months and years is not appealing,” he said.
Levels of circulating plasmablasts as measured by peripheral blood flow cytometry, especially IgG4-positive plasmablasts, have proven much more helpful than serum IgG4 levels as a diagnostic tool, a reliable biomarker of disease activity, and a therapeutic target. Levels of these short-lived CD19+CD38+CD27+ plasmablasts are enormously elevated independent of serum IgG4 in patients with active IgG4-RD.
“One of the questions I’m most often asked is whether IgG4-related disease is a premalignant condition. My answer is no. The plasmablast expansion is oligoclonal, not polyclonal,” Dr. Stone continued.
He described IgG4-RD as “a continuous dance between T cells and B cells.” The latest thinking regarding pathogenesis is that type 2 T follicular helper cells activate B cells, which become memory B cells or plasmablasts. These activated B cells and plasmablasts present antigen to CD4+ cytotoxic T cells at sites of disease. Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators recently identified these CD4+ cytotoxic T cells as a novel population of clonally expanded T cells with SLAMF7 as a surface marker. The cells secrete interferon-gamma, interleukin-1, and transforming growth factor-beta, all of which are capable of driving the intense fibrosis characteristic of IgG4-RD. In addition, these CD4+ cytotoxic T cells secrete granzyme B and perforin, previously thought to be released mainly by natural killer T cells.
Joint American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for the disease are expected to be finalized this winter at the Third International Symposium on IgG4-Related Diseases.
Treatment with rituxumab
Glucocorticoids remain the first-line therapy in IgG4-related disease, but it’s essential to bear in mind that their long-term efficacy in this immune-mediated fibroinflammatory disease is the exception rather than the rule, Dr. Stone said at the symposium.
Dr. Stone was a coauthor of an international expert consensus statement on the treatment of IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD), which emphasized that point (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;67[7]:1688-99).
“I typically start with prednisone at 40 mg/day, and there’s a dramatic response in these patients. Then I taper them off after 2-3 months. If 2-3 months doesn’t put them into a long-term sustained remission, it’s time to go to something else,” said Dr. Stone.
So what’s the next move, then, after steroids fail? Dr. Stone was a pioneer in the strikingly successful use of B cell depletion via rituximab (Rituxan) in patients with IgG4-RD. First he and his coinvestigators demonstrated that this off-label use of rituximab led to rapid clinical and histologic improvement (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jun; 74[6]:1171-7), then they showed it also causes levels of circulating plasmablasts, serum IgG4, and biomarkers of fibrosis to plunge, suggesting B cell depletion may halt the destructive process of collagen deposition that characterizes this immune-related disease (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Dec;74[12]:2236-43). They have also reported that patients with very elevated baseline serum IgG4 levels are at more than sixfold increased risk of relapse at a median of 244 days from their first rituximab infusion (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2016 Jun;55[6]:1000-8).
The success with rituximab is just one example of how improved understanding of the pathophysiology of IgG4-RD has opened the door to novel treatments. Dr. Stone is the lead investigator in an ongoing phase II, open-label study in which 15 patients with active IgG4-RD will receive intravenous XmAb5871 every 2 weeks for 6 months to evaluate the effect on the IgG4-RD Responder Index. XmAb5871 is a monoclonal antibody that binds to CD19 and FCgammaRIIb in order to downregulate activated B cells and plasmablasts. It is also being developed for treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus.
Dr. Stone and his coinvestigators are working on a therapeutic approach to IgG4-RD that targets antigen presentation by activated B cells to CD4+ cytotoxic T cells at sites of disease. These CD4+ cytotoxic T cells contain signaling lymphocyte activation molecule F7 (SLAMF7) as a surface marker. Elotuzumab (Empliciti), an immunostimulatory humanized monoclonal antibody targeting SLAMF7, is already on the market for treatment of multiple myeloma, he noted.
Dr. Stone reported receiving IgG4-RD-related research funding from and serving as a consultant to Genentech and Xencor, which is developing XmAb5871.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE WINTER RHEUMATOLOGY SYMPOSIUM
Urgent colonoscopy for LGIB: Consider case by case
Colonoscopy performed within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal bleeding appears safe and well tolerated but does not appear to improve a number of important clinical outcomes when compared with elective colonoscopy, according to the findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Such “urgent colonoscopy” may, however, reduce hospital length of stay and cost, Abdul M. Kouanda, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues reported online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
In a pooled analysis of data from 12 studies with a total of 10,172 patients who underwent urgent colonoscopy, and 14,224 patients who underwent elective colonoscopy, the former was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic interventions, compared with elective colonoscopy (relative risk, 1.70), but not with improved bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14), transfusion requirements (RR, 1.02), or mortality (RR, 1.17), the investigators found (Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Feb 4. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.035).
The findings are based on nine studies from the United States, two from Japan, and one from Spain. Nine were retrospective cohort studies, two were randomized controlled trials, and one was a prospective cohort study.
With respect to the 70% greater use of therapeutic interventions with urgent colonoscopy, a subanalysis showed that the difference between urgent and elective colonoscopy was evident only in the randomized trials; no difference was seen in the prospective trials. With further stratification of urgent colonoscopy into procedures performed within 12 hours, the observation of increased therapeutic interventions was no longer statistically significant (RR, 3.46), they said.
As for bleeding source localization, the outcomes remained similar when retrospective studies were analyzed separately, and with colonoscopy performed within 12 hours. Blood transfusions decreased with urgent colonoscopy when only retrospective studies were analyzed (RR, 0.84).
The investigators noted that there was a trend toward decreased length of hospital stay among those undergoing urgent colonoscopy (mean of 4.8 days vs. 6.4 days with elective colonoscopy). Only two studies looked at cost: One showed a decrease in hospital costs with urgent vs. elective colonoscopy, while one showed no difference.
“In our pooled analysis, the mean hospital costs in the urgent colonoscopy group were $24,866, compared with $27,691 in the elective group; however, the difference between the two was not statistically significant,” they wrote.
The annual incidence of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in the United States is 20.5-35.7 out of 100,000 patients, and the incidence increases with age; there is a 200-fold increase in incidence from the 3rd to 9th decade of life, the investigators said, adding that the incidence is rising as the population ages.
“Such a trend has important implications for both the quality of care for treating LGIB and the associated costs to the overall U.S. health care system,” they wrote, noting that while colonoscopy is appropriate for evaluating LGIB in most cases, no clear consensus exists with respect to timing of colonoscopy.
Even a recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline recommending that initial colonoscopy for severe and hemodynamically stable hematochezia be performed within 8-24 hours of admission is based only on moderate-quality level evidence that is “fraught with a number of limitations,” they wrote.
The current study was designed to “further clarify the utility of urgent versus elective colonoscopy in evaluating patients hospitalized with a lower GI bleed,” they added.
The lack of clinical benefit seen in this study “may be secondary to the benign, often self-resolving natural history in the majority of LGIB cases. However, there may be a subset of patients who could benefit from early intervention (such as severe blood loss, hemodynamically unstable patients), and thus the decision to pursue urgent colonoscopy should be made on a case-by-case basis,” they said.
Further, although several critical patient outcomes did not appear to be impacted by urgent vs. elective colonoscopy in this study, the trends toward a decrease in length of stay suggest that earlier performance of colonoscopy may lead to earlier and better identification of low-risk and high-risk stigmata, allowing those with low-risk lesions to be discharged much earlier.
“Additionally, earlier discharge of patients could also reduce their risk of health care–associated infections and adverse events,” the investigators noted.
The findings with respect to length of stay and cost “align perfectly with the new focus in health care on providing high quality and safe care to patients while at the same time containing medical costs,” they wrote, adding that clinicians should carefully consider all factors when deciding to pursue urgent colonoscopy.”
The study is limited by heterogeneity and publications bias, and by factors inherent in meta-analyses, but it also has several strengths, including a large number of studies and patients. Also, it is the first of its kind to examine “all of the available literature to elucidate the time frame for performing colonoscopy in patients with hematochezia,” the investigators said, concluding that further research is needed to identify subsets of patients who will benefit from early intervention, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of urgent colonoscopy, and to look at – in larger randomized controlled trials – the overall benefit of urgent colonoscopy.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
Colonoscopy performed within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal bleeding appears safe and well tolerated but does not appear to improve a number of important clinical outcomes when compared with elective colonoscopy, according to the findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Such “urgent colonoscopy” may, however, reduce hospital length of stay and cost, Abdul M. Kouanda, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues reported online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
In a pooled analysis of data from 12 studies with a total of 10,172 patients who underwent urgent colonoscopy, and 14,224 patients who underwent elective colonoscopy, the former was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic interventions, compared with elective colonoscopy (relative risk, 1.70), but not with improved bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14), transfusion requirements (RR, 1.02), or mortality (RR, 1.17), the investigators found (Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Feb 4. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.035).
The findings are based on nine studies from the United States, two from Japan, and one from Spain. Nine were retrospective cohort studies, two were randomized controlled trials, and one was a prospective cohort study.
With respect to the 70% greater use of therapeutic interventions with urgent colonoscopy, a subanalysis showed that the difference between urgent and elective colonoscopy was evident only in the randomized trials; no difference was seen in the prospective trials. With further stratification of urgent colonoscopy into procedures performed within 12 hours, the observation of increased therapeutic interventions was no longer statistically significant (RR, 3.46), they said.
As for bleeding source localization, the outcomes remained similar when retrospective studies were analyzed separately, and with colonoscopy performed within 12 hours. Blood transfusions decreased with urgent colonoscopy when only retrospective studies were analyzed (RR, 0.84).
The investigators noted that there was a trend toward decreased length of hospital stay among those undergoing urgent colonoscopy (mean of 4.8 days vs. 6.4 days with elective colonoscopy). Only two studies looked at cost: One showed a decrease in hospital costs with urgent vs. elective colonoscopy, while one showed no difference.
“In our pooled analysis, the mean hospital costs in the urgent colonoscopy group were $24,866, compared with $27,691 in the elective group; however, the difference between the two was not statistically significant,” they wrote.
The annual incidence of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in the United States is 20.5-35.7 out of 100,000 patients, and the incidence increases with age; there is a 200-fold increase in incidence from the 3rd to 9th decade of life, the investigators said, adding that the incidence is rising as the population ages.
“Such a trend has important implications for both the quality of care for treating LGIB and the associated costs to the overall U.S. health care system,” they wrote, noting that while colonoscopy is appropriate for evaluating LGIB in most cases, no clear consensus exists with respect to timing of colonoscopy.
Even a recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline recommending that initial colonoscopy for severe and hemodynamically stable hematochezia be performed within 8-24 hours of admission is based only on moderate-quality level evidence that is “fraught with a number of limitations,” they wrote.
The current study was designed to “further clarify the utility of urgent versus elective colonoscopy in evaluating patients hospitalized with a lower GI bleed,” they added.
The lack of clinical benefit seen in this study “may be secondary to the benign, often self-resolving natural history in the majority of LGIB cases. However, there may be a subset of patients who could benefit from early intervention (such as severe blood loss, hemodynamically unstable patients), and thus the decision to pursue urgent colonoscopy should be made on a case-by-case basis,” they said.
Further, although several critical patient outcomes did not appear to be impacted by urgent vs. elective colonoscopy in this study, the trends toward a decrease in length of stay suggest that earlier performance of colonoscopy may lead to earlier and better identification of low-risk and high-risk stigmata, allowing those with low-risk lesions to be discharged much earlier.
“Additionally, earlier discharge of patients could also reduce their risk of health care–associated infections and adverse events,” the investigators noted.
The findings with respect to length of stay and cost “align perfectly with the new focus in health care on providing high quality and safe care to patients while at the same time containing medical costs,” they wrote, adding that clinicians should carefully consider all factors when deciding to pursue urgent colonoscopy.”
The study is limited by heterogeneity and publications bias, and by factors inherent in meta-analyses, but it also has several strengths, including a large number of studies and patients. Also, it is the first of its kind to examine “all of the available literature to elucidate the time frame for performing colonoscopy in patients with hematochezia,” the investigators said, concluding that further research is needed to identify subsets of patients who will benefit from early intervention, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of urgent colonoscopy, and to look at – in larger randomized controlled trials – the overall benefit of urgent colonoscopy.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
Colonoscopy performed within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal bleeding appears safe and well tolerated but does not appear to improve a number of important clinical outcomes when compared with elective colonoscopy, according to the findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Such “urgent colonoscopy” may, however, reduce hospital length of stay and cost, Abdul M. Kouanda, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and his colleagues reported online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
In a pooled analysis of data from 12 studies with a total of 10,172 patients who underwent urgent colonoscopy, and 14,224 patients who underwent elective colonoscopy, the former was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic interventions, compared with elective colonoscopy (relative risk, 1.70), but not with improved bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14), transfusion requirements (RR, 1.02), or mortality (RR, 1.17), the investigators found (Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Feb 4. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.035).
The findings are based on nine studies from the United States, two from Japan, and one from Spain. Nine were retrospective cohort studies, two were randomized controlled trials, and one was a prospective cohort study.
With respect to the 70% greater use of therapeutic interventions with urgent colonoscopy, a subanalysis showed that the difference between urgent and elective colonoscopy was evident only in the randomized trials; no difference was seen in the prospective trials. With further stratification of urgent colonoscopy into procedures performed within 12 hours, the observation of increased therapeutic interventions was no longer statistically significant (RR, 3.46), they said.
As for bleeding source localization, the outcomes remained similar when retrospective studies were analyzed separately, and with colonoscopy performed within 12 hours. Blood transfusions decreased with urgent colonoscopy when only retrospective studies were analyzed (RR, 0.84).
The investigators noted that there was a trend toward decreased length of hospital stay among those undergoing urgent colonoscopy (mean of 4.8 days vs. 6.4 days with elective colonoscopy). Only two studies looked at cost: One showed a decrease in hospital costs with urgent vs. elective colonoscopy, while one showed no difference.
“In our pooled analysis, the mean hospital costs in the urgent colonoscopy group were $24,866, compared with $27,691 in the elective group; however, the difference between the two was not statistically significant,” they wrote.
The annual incidence of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) in the United States is 20.5-35.7 out of 100,000 patients, and the incidence increases with age; there is a 200-fold increase in incidence from the 3rd to 9th decade of life, the investigators said, adding that the incidence is rising as the population ages.
“Such a trend has important implications for both the quality of care for treating LGIB and the associated costs to the overall U.S. health care system,” they wrote, noting that while colonoscopy is appropriate for evaluating LGIB in most cases, no clear consensus exists with respect to timing of colonoscopy.
Even a recent American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline recommending that initial colonoscopy for severe and hemodynamically stable hematochezia be performed within 8-24 hours of admission is based only on moderate-quality level evidence that is “fraught with a number of limitations,” they wrote.
The current study was designed to “further clarify the utility of urgent versus elective colonoscopy in evaluating patients hospitalized with a lower GI bleed,” they added.
The lack of clinical benefit seen in this study “may be secondary to the benign, often self-resolving natural history in the majority of LGIB cases. However, there may be a subset of patients who could benefit from early intervention (such as severe blood loss, hemodynamically unstable patients), and thus the decision to pursue urgent colonoscopy should be made on a case-by-case basis,” they said.
Further, although several critical patient outcomes did not appear to be impacted by urgent vs. elective colonoscopy in this study, the trends toward a decrease in length of stay suggest that earlier performance of colonoscopy may lead to earlier and better identification of low-risk and high-risk stigmata, allowing those with low-risk lesions to be discharged much earlier.
“Additionally, earlier discharge of patients could also reduce their risk of health care–associated infections and adverse events,” the investigators noted.
The findings with respect to length of stay and cost “align perfectly with the new focus in health care on providing high quality and safe care to patients while at the same time containing medical costs,” they wrote, adding that clinicians should carefully consider all factors when deciding to pursue urgent colonoscopy.”
The study is limited by heterogeneity and publications bias, and by factors inherent in meta-analyses, but it also has several strengths, including a large number of studies and patients. Also, it is the first of its kind to examine “all of the available literature to elucidate the time frame for performing colonoscopy in patients with hematochezia,” the investigators said, concluding that further research is needed to identify subsets of patients who will benefit from early intervention, to evaluate the cost effectiveness of urgent colonoscopy, and to look at – in larger randomized controlled trials – the overall benefit of urgent colonoscopy.
The authors reported having no disclosures.
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Urgent vs. elective colonoscopy was not associated with improved bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14), transfusion requirements (RR, 1.02) or mortality (RR, 1.17).
Data source: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 studies including more than 24,000 patients.
Disclosures: The authors reported having no disclosures.
Endoscopic resection alone sufficed in many T1 colorectal cancers
Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology, according to a retrospective, population-based study of 1,315 patients.
After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9), reported Tim D.G. Belderbos, MD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Rates of local recurrence also were similar between these groups (4.1% and 3.7%, P = .3), he and his associates reported in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.041).
Among high-risk patients, however, the rates of overall recurrence were 14% with endoscopic resection only and 7% with endoscopic resection plus additional surgery (P = .06), and the rates of local recurrence were 12% and 1%, respectively (P = .004). “Based on our study, we recommend performing additional surgery after initial endoscopic resection in cases of high-risk T1 CRC, determined by high-risk histology and/or positive resection margins,” the researchers concluded. Invasive CRCs confined to the colonic submucosa (T1 CRC) present a treatment dilemma – they are usually cured by complete endoscopic resection, but up to 13% involve lymph node metastases and need additional surgery, the investigators noted. To identify predictors of recurrence and metastasis, they studied all patients diagnosed with T1 CRC in the Southeast Netherlands from 1995 through 2011. A total of 370 patients (28%) underwent endoscopic resection only, 220 (17%) underwent endoscopic resection with additional surgery, and 725 (55%) had an initial surgical resection.
Surgery after endoscopic resection was more likely when patients had positive or doubtful resection margins (P less than .001), and this link remained significant after high-risk histology, tumor location, time period, age, sex, and comorbidities were controlled for. Endoscopic resection plus surgery did not reduce the risk of recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only (P = .3), after the investigators accounted for age, sex, year of procedure, tumor location, and margin characteristics. Initial surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall and local recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only, but the differences also lost significance in the multivariable analysis (P = .2).
Only the presence of positive resection margins significantly predicted recurrence among patients undergoing endoscopic resection (hazard ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-20.9). Positive or doubtful resection margins also predicted recurrence after initial surgery, with hazard ratios of 13.2 and 3.4, respectively. High-risk histology – that is, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, or lymphangioinvasion – was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P less than .002), but not with recurrence after resection margins were accounted for. This might result from missing histology data or the fact that patients with high-risk histology tended to undergo surgical rather than endoscopic resection, the researchers said.
They noted several other study limitations, including a lack of details about lesions and procedures. Also, endoscopic submucosal resection was not practiced in the Netherlands during the study period, they said.
The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.
Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology, according to a retrospective, population-based study of 1,315 patients.
After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9), reported Tim D.G. Belderbos, MD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Rates of local recurrence also were similar between these groups (4.1% and 3.7%, P = .3), he and his associates reported in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.041).
Among high-risk patients, however, the rates of overall recurrence were 14% with endoscopic resection only and 7% with endoscopic resection plus additional surgery (P = .06), and the rates of local recurrence were 12% and 1%, respectively (P = .004). “Based on our study, we recommend performing additional surgery after initial endoscopic resection in cases of high-risk T1 CRC, determined by high-risk histology and/or positive resection margins,” the researchers concluded. Invasive CRCs confined to the colonic submucosa (T1 CRC) present a treatment dilemma – they are usually cured by complete endoscopic resection, but up to 13% involve lymph node metastases and need additional surgery, the investigators noted. To identify predictors of recurrence and metastasis, they studied all patients diagnosed with T1 CRC in the Southeast Netherlands from 1995 through 2011. A total of 370 patients (28%) underwent endoscopic resection only, 220 (17%) underwent endoscopic resection with additional surgery, and 725 (55%) had an initial surgical resection.
Surgery after endoscopic resection was more likely when patients had positive or doubtful resection margins (P less than .001), and this link remained significant after high-risk histology, tumor location, time period, age, sex, and comorbidities were controlled for. Endoscopic resection plus surgery did not reduce the risk of recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only (P = .3), after the investigators accounted for age, sex, year of procedure, tumor location, and margin characteristics. Initial surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall and local recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only, but the differences also lost significance in the multivariable analysis (P = .2).
Only the presence of positive resection margins significantly predicted recurrence among patients undergoing endoscopic resection (hazard ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-20.9). Positive or doubtful resection margins also predicted recurrence after initial surgery, with hazard ratios of 13.2 and 3.4, respectively. High-risk histology – that is, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, or lymphangioinvasion – was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P less than .002), but not with recurrence after resection margins were accounted for. This might result from missing histology data or the fact that patients with high-risk histology tended to undergo surgical rather than endoscopic resection, the researchers said.
They noted several other study limitations, including a lack of details about lesions and procedures. Also, endoscopic submucosal resection was not practiced in the Netherlands during the study period, they said.
The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.
Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology, according to a retrospective, population-based study of 1,315 patients.
After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, the rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9), reported Tim D.G. Belderbos, MD, of University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands). Rates of local recurrence also were similar between these groups (4.1% and 3.7%, P = .3), he and his associates reported in the March issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.041).
Among high-risk patients, however, the rates of overall recurrence were 14% with endoscopic resection only and 7% with endoscopic resection plus additional surgery (P = .06), and the rates of local recurrence were 12% and 1%, respectively (P = .004). “Based on our study, we recommend performing additional surgery after initial endoscopic resection in cases of high-risk T1 CRC, determined by high-risk histology and/or positive resection margins,” the researchers concluded. Invasive CRCs confined to the colonic submucosa (T1 CRC) present a treatment dilemma – they are usually cured by complete endoscopic resection, but up to 13% involve lymph node metastases and need additional surgery, the investigators noted. To identify predictors of recurrence and metastasis, they studied all patients diagnosed with T1 CRC in the Southeast Netherlands from 1995 through 2011. A total of 370 patients (28%) underwent endoscopic resection only, 220 (17%) underwent endoscopic resection with additional surgery, and 725 (55%) had an initial surgical resection.
Surgery after endoscopic resection was more likely when patients had positive or doubtful resection margins (P less than .001), and this link remained significant after high-risk histology, tumor location, time period, age, sex, and comorbidities were controlled for. Endoscopic resection plus surgery did not reduce the risk of recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only (P = .3), after the investigators accounted for age, sex, year of procedure, tumor location, and margin characteristics. Initial surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall and local recurrence, compared with endoscopic resection only, but the differences also lost significance in the multivariable analysis (P = .2).
Only the presence of positive resection margins significantly predicted recurrence among patients undergoing endoscopic resection (hazard ratio, 6.9; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-20.9). Positive or doubtful resection margins also predicted recurrence after initial surgery, with hazard ratios of 13.2 and 3.4, respectively. High-risk histology – that is, poor differentiation, deep submucosal invasion, or lymphangioinvasion – was significantly associated with lymph node metastasis (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.7; P less than .002), but not with recurrence after resection margins were accounted for. This might result from missing histology data or the fact that patients with high-risk histology tended to undergo surgical rather than endoscopic resection, the researchers said.
They noted several other study limitations, including a lack of details about lesions and procedures. Also, endoscopic submucosal resection was not practiced in the Netherlands during the study period, they said.
The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Key clinical point. Patients with T1 colorectal cancer might not benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection unless they have positive or indeterminate resection margins or high-risk histology.
Major finding: After a median follow-up of 6.6 years, rates of CRC recurrence were 6.2% in patients who underwent endoscopic resection only, and 6.4% in patients who also had additional surgery (P = .9). Among high-risk patients, these rates were 14% and 7%, respectively (P = .06).
Data source: A retrospective population-based study of 1,315 patients who underwent endoscopic or surgical resection of T1 colorectal cancer.
Disclosures: The investigators did not report funding sources and had no disclosures.
Flashback to April 2008
The April 2008 issue of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN) featured an article by Roy M. Soetikno, MD, MS, FASGE and his colleagues from the Palo Alto VA Medical Center in California. They drew our attention to nonpolypoid (flat) colonic lesions in an article from JAMA (2008;299:1027-35).
Coincidentally, the week before this article appeared, I was sitting with Roy in Kyoto, Japan, at a conference of international experts focused on flat colonic lesions. The Japanese definitions of flat and depressed lesions were markedly different from those used by Western physicians. We now know that most flat lesions seen by U.S.-based endoscopists are sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs). SSAs at that time also were a new and controversial classification. SSAs were first described by Torlakovic and Snover in 1996 (Gastroenterology 1996;110:748-55).
Dale Snover, MD, was my golfing partner and read pathology slides for our practice in Minneapolis, so we were the first gastroenterologists in the country to grapple with the clinical implications of SSAs. Roy’s article was accompanied by an excellent commentary by Jerome D. Waye, MD, FASGE, who emphasized the importance of a slow withdrawal time and meticulous visual technique during colonoscopy.
Key points in the JAMA article were a) prevalence of flat lesions was about 9% in a screening population, b) small flat polyps can harbor advanced histologic changes including cancers, and c) many physicians who perform colonoscopy missed these lesions putting patients at risk for interval colon cancers. 
The GIHN piece, referencing Soetikno’s article, helped inform us about an important (and confusing) problem in our colon cancer prevention efforts. As numerous authors subsequently highlighted (see Gastroenterology 2016;151:870-8) most cancers, missed at initial colonoscopy, are proximal and frequently develop from SSAs. We continue to work to reduce missed cancers and thanks to this seminal article, we have better insights about how to achieve this goal.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Editor in Chief of GI & Hepatology News.
The April 2008 issue of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN) featured an article by Roy M. Soetikno, MD, MS, FASGE and his colleagues from the Palo Alto VA Medical Center in California. They drew our attention to nonpolypoid (flat) colonic lesions in an article from JAMA (2008;299:1027-35).
Coincidentally, the week before this article appeared, I was sitting with Roy in Kyoto, Japan, at a conference of international experts focused on flat colonic lesions. The Japanese definitions of flat and depressed lesions were markedly different from those used by Western physicians. We now know that most flat lesions seen by U.S.-based endoscopists are sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs). SSAs at that time also were a new and controversial classification. SSAs were first described by Torlakovic and Snover in 1996 (Gastroenterology 1996;110:748-55).
Dale Snover, MD, was my golfing partner and read pathology slides for our practice in Minneapolis, so we were the first gastroenterologists in the country to grapple with the clinical implications of SSAs. Roy’s article was accompanied by an excellent commentary by Jerome D. Waye, MD, FASGE, who emphasized the importance of a slow withdrawal time and meticulous visual technique during colonoscopy.
Key points in the JAMA article were a) prevalence of flat lesions was about 9% in a screening population, b) small flat polyps can harbor advanced histologic changes including cancers, and c) many physicians who perform colonoscopy missed these lesions putting patients at risk for interval colon cancers.
The GIHN piece, referencing Soetikno’s article, helped inform us about an important (and confusing) problem in our colon cancer prevention efforts. As numerous authors subsequently highlighted (see Gastroenterology 2016;151:870-8) most cancers, missed at initial colonoscopy, are proximal and frequently develop from SSAs. We continue to work to reduce missed cancers and thanks to this seminal article, we have better insights about how to achieve this goal.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Editor in Chief of GI & Hepatology News.
The April 2008 issue of GI & Hepatology News (GIHN) featured an article by Roy M. Soetikno, MD, MS, FASGE and his colleagues from the Palo Alto VA Medical Center in California. They drew our attention to nonpolypoid (flat) colonic lesions in an article from JAMA (2008;299:1027-35).
Coincidentally, the week before this article appeared, I was sitting with Roy in Kyoto, Japan, at a conference of international experts focused on flat colonic lesions. The Japanese definitions of flat and depressed lesions were markedly different from those used by Western physicians. We now know that most flat lesions seen by U.S.-based endoscopists are sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs). SSAs at that time also were a new and controversial classification. SSAs were first described by Torlakovic and Snover in 1996 (Gastroenterology 1996;110:748-55).
Dale Snover, MD, was my golfing partner and read pathology slides for our practice in Minneapolis, so we were the first gastroenterologists in the country to grapple with the clinical implications of SSAs. Roy’s article was accompanied by an excellent commentary by Jerome D. Waye, MD, FASGE, who emphasized the importance of a slow withdrawal time and meticulous visual technique during colonoscopy.
Key points in the JAMA article were a) prevalence of flat lesions was about 9% in a screening population, b) small flat polyps can harbor advanced histologic changes including cancers, and c) many physicians who perform colonoscopy missed these lesions putting patients at risk for interval colon cancers.
The GIHN piece, referencing Soetikno’s article, helped inform us about an important (and confusing) problem in our colon cancer prevention efforts. As numerous authors subsequently highlighted (see Gastroenterology 2016;151:870-8) most cancers, missed at initial colonoscopy, are proximal and frequently develop from SSAs. We continue to work to reduce missed cancers and thanks to this seminal article, we have better insights about how to achieve this goal.
John I. Allen, MD, MBA, AGAF, is professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and the Editor in Chief of GI & Hepatology News.
Scleroligation procedure proposed for gastroesophageal varices
In the treatment of gastroesophageal varices, scleroligation – a hybrid procedure that combines sclerotherapy and band ligation – performed as well as did band ligation, but required fewer sessions and had a shorter overall treatment duration. Sclerotherapy involves the injection of sclerosant to prompt occlusion of the varices, while ligation involves banding the varices to cut off blood flow.
The new approach combines them. The researchers ligated the varix 3-5 cm from the gastroesophageal junction and injected the sclerosant into the varix, below the ligated section. They reasoned that ligation should increase the contact time between the sclerosant and endothelial cells, and thus improve efficacy.
He noted that in the United States, band ligation is the standard of therapy, and the new study won’t change that. “These preliminary results from a single center are quite promising, and if they can be confirmed in a larger, multicenter trial, then this is something that can be added to our therapeutic armamentarium,” said Dr. Kwo.
Band ligation replaced sclerotherapy as the preferred treatment for gastroesophageal varices because it has equal efficacy but fewer severe side effects. However, it also suffers from a higher rate of recurrence because the bands cannot destroy deeper varices and perforating veins.
The combination technique, scleroligation, has been demonstrated in the treatment of esophageal varices, which prompted the authors’ investigation into gastroesophageal varices.
At a single center, the researchers recruited 120 patients with cirrhosis and acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding above the gastroesophageal junction. They were randomized 1:1 to undergo endoscopic band ligation (EBL) or scleroligation (SL).
On average, 15.6 weeks were required to obliterate the varices in the EBL group versus 8.64 weeks in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group required an average of 3.43 sessions to reach that endpoint, compared with 2.22 sessions in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group required an average of 13.72 bands per patient, compared with 8.88 bands in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group also had a higher average number of units of blood transfused (2.30 vs 1.53; P less than .001).
No patients in either group experienced perforation, chest empyema, pericardial effusion, or strictures.
The good safety outcomes may be related to the small volume of sclerosant used, just 2 mL. “It’s probably because of their meticulous approach that they were able to reduce the complications that we have historically seen with sclerotherapy alone,” said Dr. Kwo.
There was no difference in the number of rebleeds or recurrences at follow-up, total cost, mortality due to rebleeding, or 12-month survival.
No funding source was disclosed. The authors reported no financial disclosures.
In the treatment of gastroesophageal varices, scleroligation – a hybrid procedure that combines sclerotherapy and band ligation – performed as well as did band ligation, but required fewer sessions and had a shorter overall treatment duration. Sclerotherapy involves the injection of sclerosant to prompt occlusion of the varices, while ligation involves banding the varices to cut off blood flow.
The new approach combines them. The researchers ligated the varix 3-5 cm from the gastroesophageal junction and injected the sclerosant into the varix, below the ligated section. They reasoned that ligation should increase the contact time between the sclerosant and endothelial cells, and thus improve efficacy.
He noted that in the United States, band ligation is the standard of therapy, and the new study won’t change that. “These preliminary results from a single center are quite promising, and if they can be confirmed in a larger, multicenter trial, then this is something that can be added to our therapeutic armamentarium,” said Dr. Kwo.
Band ligation replaced sclerotherapy as the preferred treatment for gastroesophageal varices because it has equal efficacy but fewer severe side effects. However, it also suffers from a higher rate of recurrence because the bands cannot destroy deeper varices and perforating veins.
The combination technique, scleroligation, has been demonstrated in the treatment of esophageal varices, which prompted the authors’ investigation into gastroesophageal varices.
At a single center, the researchers recruited 120 patients with cirrhosis and acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding above the gastroesophageal junction. They were randomized 1:1 to undergo endoscopic band ligation (EBL) or scleroligation (SL).
On average, 15.6 weeks were required to obliterate the varices in the EBL group versus 8.64 weeks in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group required an average of 3.43 sessions to reach that endpoint, compared with 2.22 sessions in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group required an average of 13.72 bands per patient, compared with 8.88 bands in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group also had a higher average number of units of blood transfused (2.30 vs 1.53; P less than .001).
No patients in either group experienced perforation, chest empyema, pericardial effusion, or strictures.
The good safety outcomes may be related to the small volume of sclerosant used, just 2 mL. “It’s probably because of their meticulous approach that they were able to reduce the complications that we have historically seen with sclerotherapy alone,” said Dr. Kwo.
There was no difference in the number of rebleeds or recurrences at follow-up, total cost, mortality due to rebleeding, or 12-month survival.
No funding source was disclosed. The authors reported no financial disclosures.
In the treatment of gastroesophageal varices, scleroligation – a hybrid procedure that combines sclerotherapy and band ligation – performed as well as did band ligation, but required fewer sessions and had a shorter overall treatment duration. Sclerotherapy involves the injection of sclerosant to prompt occlusion of the varices, while ligation involves banding the varices to cut off blood flow.
The new approach combines them. The researchers ligated the varix 3-5 cm from the gastroesophageal junction and injected the sclerosant into the varix, below the ligated section. They reasoned that ligation should increase the contact time between the sclerosant and endothelial cells, and thus improve efficacy.
He noted that in the United States, band ligation is the standard of therapy, and the new study won’t change that. “These preliminary results from a single center are quite promising, and if they can be confirmed in a larger, multicenter trial, then this is something that can be added to our therapeutic armamentarium,” said Dr. Kwo.
Band ligation replaced sclerotherapy as the preferred treatment for gastroesophageal varices because it has equal efficacy but fewer severe side effects. However, it also suffers from a higher rate of recurrence because the bands cannot destroy deeper varices and perforating veins.
The combination technique, scleroligation, has been demonstrated in the treatment of esophageal varices, which prompted the authors’ investigation into gastroesophageal varices.
At a single center, the researchers recruited 120 patients with cirrhosis and acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding above the gastroesophageal junction. They were randomized 1:1 to undergo endoscopic band ligation (EBL) or scleroligation (SL).
On average, 15.6 weeks were required to obliterate the varices in the EBL group versus 8.64 weeks in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group required an average of 3.43 sessions to reach that endpoint, compared with 2.22 sessions in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group required an average of 13.72 bands per patient, compared with 8.88 bands in the SL group (P less than .001). The EBL group also had a higher average number of units of blood transfused (2.30 vs 1.53; P less than .001).
No patients in either group experienced perforation, chest empyema, pericardial effusion, or strictures.
The good safety outcomes may be related to the small volume of sclerosant used, just 2 mL. “It’s probably because of their meticulous approach that they were able to reduce the complications that we have historically seen with sclerotherapy alone,” said Dr. Kwo.
There was no difference in the number of rebleeds or recurrences at follow-up, total cost, mortality due to rebleeding, or 12-month survival.
No funding source was disclosed. The authors reported no financial disclosures.
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Scleroligation required 2.22 sessions on average, compared with 3.43 for endoscopic band ligation.
Data source: Single-center randomized trial of 120 patients.
Disclosures: No funding source was disclosed. The authors reported no financial disclosures.
AGA Clinical Practice Update: Endoscope reprocessing guidelines are an improvement
While the 2016 Multi-Society Task Force Endoscope Reprocessing Guidelines are an improvement over the 2011 guidelines, some of its minor changes are unlikely to guarantee against prevention of future outbreaks, according to Susan Hutfless, PhD, and Anthony N. Kalloo, MD.*
“The prevention of future outbreaks is left to the manufacturers to modify their protocols and the endoscopy units to adopt the protocols rapidly,” the authors, both from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary about the 2016 guidelines, which contain 41 recommendations and were endorsed by the AGA. “If followed, the guidelines will make it possible to better track the source of future outbreaks if the tracking and monitoring suggested is performed.” They added that the current cleaning paradigm for duodenoscopes “is ineffective and these guidelines reflect changes to contain, rather than prevent, future outbreaks.”
Some of the specific changes to the 2016 guidelines include recommendation no. 5, which has been revised to recommend “strict adherence” to manufacturer guidance. “The expectation is that all personnel will remain up to date with the manufacturer guidelines and that there will be documentation of the training,” Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo wrote. The 2016 guidelines specifically state that a “single standard work process within one institution may be insufficient, given differences among manufacturers’ instructions and varied instrument designs.” However, Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo point out that “an individual or group of individuals may need to be identified to keep up with the FDA, CDC, manufacturer and professional societies in order to modify and implement the changes to the cleaning and training protocols and update the training of all individuals in the unit. It is unclear from the guidelines what the minimum time should be between change in recommendations and updated training.”
Recommendation no. 24 is new and includes a suggestion consistent with the 2015 FDA endoscope reprocessing communications. “Beyond the reprocessing steps discussed in these recommendations, no validated methods for additional duodenoscope reprocessing currently exist,” the guidelines state. “However, units should review and consider the feasibility and appropriateness for their practice of employing one or more of the additional modalities suggested by the FDA for duodenoscopes: intermittent or per procedure culture surveillance of reprocessing outcomes, sterilization with ethylene oxide gas, repeat application of standard high level disinfection, or use of a liquid chemical germicide.” For their part, Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo pointed out the limitations of these additional modalities. For example, they wrote, “the per procedure culture surveillance modality suggested by the FDA is not cost-effective unless the unit’s transmission probability of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae is 24% or greater. Sterilization with ethylene oxide is problematic because a unit that used this approach still encountered an endoscope with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae detected by culture. This unit also incurred extra costs to purchase additional scopes due to the longer reprocessing time for sterilization and had a greater number of endoscopes with damage, although the damage was not directly attributable to sterilization” (Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug;84:259-62).
In 2016, the FDA approved the first disposable colonoscope, a product that is expected to be available in the United States in early 2017. Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo ended their commentary by suggesting that a disposable endoscope with an elevator mechanism, though not currently available, could be a solution to several of the unresolved issues that were present in the 2003, 2011, and 2016 guidelines. “These unresolved issues include interval of storage after reprocessing, microbiologic surveillance, and endoscope durability and longevity,” they wrote. “If the outbreaks persist after the use of disposable endoscopes it is possible that it is some other product or procedure within the endoscopic procedure that is the source of the infectious transmission.”
*This story was update on Jan. 26, 2017.
While the 2016 Multi-Society Task Force Endoscope Reprocessing Guidelines are an improvement over the 2011 guidelines, some of its minor changes are unlikely to guarantee against prevention of future outbreaks, according to Susan Hutfless, PhD, and Anthony N. Kalloo, MD.*
“The prevention of future outbreaks is left to the manufacturers to modify their protocols and the endoscopy units to adopt the protocols rapidly,” the authors, both from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary about the 2016 guidelines, which contain 41 recommendations and were endorsed by the AGA. “If followed, the guidelines will make it possible to better track the source of future outbreaks if the tracking and monitoring suggested is performed.” They added that the current cleaning paradigm for duodenoscopes “is ineffective and these guidelines reflect changes to contain, rather than prevent, future outbreaks.”
Some of the specific changes to the 2016 guidelines include recommendation no. 5, which has been revised to recommend “strict adherence” to manufacturer guidance. “The expectation is that all personnel will remain up to date with the manufacturer guidelines and that there will be documentation of the training,” Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo wrote. The 2016 guidelines specifically state that a “single standard work process within one institution may be insufficient, given differences among manufacturers’ instructions and varied instrument designs.” However, Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo point out that “an individual or group of individuals may need to be identified to keep up with the FDA, CDC, manufacturer and professional societies in order to modify and implement the changes to the cleaning and training protocols and update the training of all individuals in the unit. It is unclear from the guidelines what the minimum time should be between change in recommendations and updated training.”
Recommendation no. 24 is new and includes a suggestion consistent with the 2015 FDA endoscope reprocessing communications. “Beyond the reprocessing steps discussed in these recommendations, no validated methods for additional duodenoscope reprocessing currently exist,” the guidelines state. “However, units should review and consider the feasibility and appropriateness for their practice of employing one or more of the additional modalities suggested by the FDA for duodenoscopes: intermittent or per procedure culture surveillance of reprocessing outcomes, sterilization with ethylene oxide gas, repeat application of standard high level disinfection, or use of a liquid chemical germicide.” For their part, Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo pointed out the limitations of these additional modalities. For example, they wrote, “the per procedure culture surveillance modality suggested by the FDA is not cost-effective unless the unit’s transmission probability of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae is 24% or greater. Sterilization with ethylene oxide is problematic because a unit that used this approach still encountered an endoscope with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae detected by culture. This unit also incurred extra costs to purchase additional scopes due to the longer reprocessing time for sterilization and had a greater number of endoscopes with damage, although the damage was not directly attributable to sterilization” (Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug;84:259-62).
In 2016, the FDA approved the first disposable colonoscope, a product that is expected to be available in the United States in early 2017. Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo ended their commentary by suggesting that a disposable endoscope with an elevator mechanism, though not currently available, could be a solution to several of the unresolved issues that were present in the 2003, 2011, and 2016 guidelines. “These unresolved issues include interval of storage after reprocessing, microbiologic surveillance, and endoscope durability and longevity,” they wrote. “If the outbreaks persist after the use of disposable endoscopes it is possible that it is some other product or procedure within the endoscopic procedure that is the source of the infectious transmission.”
*This story was update on Jan. 26, 2017.
While the 2016 Multi-Society Task Force Endoscope Reprocessing Guidelines are an improvement over the 2011 guidelines, some of its minor changes are unlikely to guarantee against prevention of future outbreaks, according to Susan Hutfless, PhD, and Anthony N. Kalloo, MD.*
“The prevention of future outbreaks is left to the manufacturers to modify their protocols and the endoscopy units to adopt the protocols rapidly,” the authors, both from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote in a commentary about the 2016 guidelines, which contain 41 recommendations and were endorsed by the AGA. “If followed, the guidelines will make it possible to better track the source of future outbreaks if the tracking and monitoring suggested is performed.” They added that the current cleaning paradigm for duodenoscopes “is ineffective and these guidelines reflect changes to contain, rather than prevent, future outbreaks.”
Some of the specific changes to the 2016 guidelines include recommendation no. 5, which has been revised to recommend “strict adherence” to manufacturer guidance. “The expectation is that all personnel will remain up to date with the manufacturer guidelines and that there will be documentation of the training,” Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo wrote. The 2016 guidelines specifically state that a “single standard work process within one institution may be insufficient, given differences among manufacturers’ instructions and varied instrument designs.” However, Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo point out that “an individual or group of individuals may need to be identified to keep up with the FDA, CDC, manufacturer and professional societies in order to modify and implement the changes to the cleaning and training protocols and update the training of all individuals in the unit. It is unclear from the guidelines what the minimum time should be between change in recommendations and updated training.”
Recommendation no. 24 is new and includes a suggestion consistent with the 2015 FDA endoscope reprocessing communications. “Beyond the reprocessing steps discussed in these recommendations, no validated methods for additional duodenoscope reprocessing currently exist,” the guidelines state. “However, units should review and consider the feasibility and appropriateness for their practice of employing one or more of the additional modalities suggested by the FDA for duodenoscopes: intermittent or per procedure culture surveillance of reprocessing outcomes, sterilization with ethylene oxide gas, repeat application of standard high level disinfection, or use of a liquid chemical germicide.” For their part, Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo pointed out the limitations of these additional modalities. For example, they wrote, “the per procedure culture surveillance modality suggested by the FDA is not cost-effective unless the unit’s transmission probability of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae is 24% or greater. Sterilization with ethylene oxide is problematic because a unit that used this approach still encountered an endoscope with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae detected by culture. This unit also incurred extra costs to purchase additional scopes due to the longer reprocessing time for sterilization and had a greater number of endoscopes with damage, although the damage was not directly attributable to sterilization” (Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug;84:259-62).
In 2016, the FDA approved the first disposable colonoscope, a product that is expected to be available in the United States in early 2017. Dr. Hutfless and Dr. Kalloo ended their commentary by suggesting that a disposable endoscope with an elevator mechanism, though not currently available, could be a solution to several of the unresolved issues that were present in the 2003, 2011, and 2016 guidelines. “These unresolved issues include interval of storage after reprocessing, microbiologic surveillance, and endoscope durability and longevity,” they wrote. “If the outbreaks persist after the use of disposable endoscopes it is possible that it is some other product or procedure within the endoscopic procedure that is the source of the infectious transmission.”
*This story was update on Jan. 26, 2017.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Half of newly detected antimicrobial antibodies do not lead to PBC
Nearly half of newly detected antimitochondrial antibodies (AMAs) in clinical practice do not lead to a diagnosis of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), according to a prospective study.
Geraldine Dahlqvist, MD, and her associates examined 720 patients whose AMA tests were registered during a 1-year census period. They were divided into groups according to whether they were newly diagnosed (275), were previously diagnosed (216), or had a nonestablished diagnosis (229) of PBC. Results showed the prevalence of AMA-positive patients without evidence of PBC was 16.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. It was four (all AMA-positive patients) to six (PBC patients) times higher in women than in men. The median age was 58 years, with the median AMA titer at 1:16. Normal serum alkaline phosphatases (ALP) were 74%, and were 1.5 times above the upper limit of normal in 13% of patients, while cirrhosis was found in 6%. Among the patients with normal ALP and no evidence of cirrhosis, the 5-year incidence rate of PBC was 16%.
It was noted that no patients died officially from PBC in this study. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year rates of survival were 95%, 90%, and 75% (95% CI, 63-87), respectively, compared with 90% in the control group.
“The younger age and lower autoantibody titer of these patients, together with the frequent mild abnormalities of their biochemical liver tests, supports a very early, presymptomatic precholestatic stage of the disease,” Dr. Dahlqvist, of Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), and her colleagues noted. “The incidence of clinical manifestations of PBC seems, however, much lower than previously reported.”
Find the full story in Hepatology (doi: 10.1002/hep.28559).
Nearly half of newly detected antimitochondrial antibodies (AMAs) in clinical practice do not lead to a diagnosis of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), according to a prospective study.
Geraldine Dahlqvist, MD, and her associates examined 720 patients whose AMA tests were registered during a 1-year census period. They were divided into groups according to whether they were newly diagnosed (275), were previously diagnosed (216), or had a nonestablished diagnosis (229) of PBC. Results showed the prevalence of AMA-positive patients without evidence of PBC was 16.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. It was four (all AMA-positive patients) to six (PBC patients) times higher in women than in men. The median age was 58 years, with the median AMA titer at 1:16. Normal serum alkaline phosphatases (ALP) were 74%, and were 1.5 times above the upper limit of normal in 13% of patients, while cirrhosis was found in 6%. Among the patients with normal ALP and no evidence of cirrhosis, the 5-year incidence rate of PBC was 16%.
It was noted that no patients died officially from PBC in this study. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year rates of survival were 95%, 90%, and 75% (95% CI, 63-87), respectively, compared with 90% in the control group.
“The younger age and lower autoantibody titer of these patients, together with the frequent mild abnormalities of their biochemical liver tests, supports a very early, presymptomatic precholestatic stage of the disease,” Dr. Dahlqvist, of Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), and her colleagues noted. “The incidence of clinical manifestations of PBC seems, however, much lower than previously reported.”
Find the full story in Hepatology (doi: 10.1002/hep.28559).
Nearly half of newly detected antimitochondrial antibodies (AMAs) in clinical practice do not lead to a diagnosis of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), according to a prospective study.
Geraldine Dahlqvist, MD, and her associates examined 720 patients whose AMA tests were registered during a 1-year census period. They were divided into groups according to whether they were newly diagnosed (275), were previously diagnosed (216), or had a nonestablished diagnosis (229) of PBC. Results showed the prevalence of AMA-positive patients without evidence of PBC was 16.1 per 100,000 inhabitants. It was four (all AMA-positive patients) to six (PBC patients) times higher in women than in men. The median age was 58 years, with the median AMA titer at 1:16. Normal serum alkaline phosphatases (ALP) were 74%, and were 1.5 times above the upper limit of normal in 13% of patients, while cirrhosis was found in 6%. Among the patients with normal ALP and no evidence of cirrhosis, the 5-year incidence rate of PBC was 16%.
It was noted that no patients died officially from PBC in this study. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year rates of survival were 95%, 90%, and 75% (95% CI, 63-87), respectively, compared with 90% in the control group.
“The younger age and lower autoantibody titer of these patients, together with the frequent mild abnormalities of their biochemical liver tests, supports a very early, presymptomatic precholestatic stage of the disease,” Dr. Dahlqvist, of Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium), and her colleagues noted. “The incidence of clinical manifestations of PBC seems, however, much lower than previously reported.”
Find the full story in Hepatology (doi: 10.1002/hep.28559).
FROM HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy during pregnancy increases risk of preterm, SGA birth
Women who undergo an endoscopy during pregnancy are increasing the chances that their baby will be born preterm, or be small for gestational age (SGA), according to research published in the February issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.016).
“Research in pregnancy outcome in women undergoing endoscopy during pregnancy is scarce,” wrote the authors, led by Jonas F. Ludvigsson, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, adding that there are nine studies with original data on a total of 379 pregnant women undergoing endoscopy; two of these studies examined pregnancy outcome in upper endoscopy (n = 143), two examined pregnancy outcome in sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (n = 116), and four examined pregnancy outcome in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 120).
Additionally, the authors noted that, to their knowledge, there are no studies that offer data on the relative risk of endoscopy during pregnancy, and none that followed up subjects after birth. Of the few studies that do exist, a handful conclude that endoscopy during pregnancy is actually safe, but do not include data on stillbirths and neonatal deaths that did not occur immediately after patients underwent endoscopy, which could compromise that data.
To address the lack of reliable research on the effect of endoscopy on pregnancy, Dr. Ludvigsson and his coinvestigators launched a nationwide study of pregnancies in Sweden that occurred between 1992 and 2011, all of which were registered in the Swedish Medical Birth Registry and the Swedish Patient Registry. The databases revealed 2,025 upper endoscopies, 1,109 lower endoscopies, and 58 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies, for a total of 3,052 pregnancies exposed to endoscopy over that time period.
The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of preterm birth and stillbirth in this population. To measure this, the investigators used adjusted relative risk (ARR), calculated via Poisson regression by using data on 1,589,173 pregnancies that were not exposed to endoscopy as reference.
“Stillbirth is recorded from 22 completed gestational weeks since mid-2008, and before that from gestational week 28. Gestational age was determined using ultrasound, and when ultrasound data were missing, we used the first day of the last menstrual period for pregnancy start,” the authors wrote.
The results showed that mothers who had any kind of endoscopy during pregnancy were more likely to experience a preterm birth or give birth to a baby who was SGA, with the ARR being 1.54 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.75) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07-1.57), respectively. However, the risk of other adverse effects, such as stillbirth or congenital malformation, was not significant: Stillbirth ARR was 1.45 (95% CI, 0.87-2.40) and congenital malformation ARR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.83-1.20).
Women who were exposed to endoscopy during pregnancy were more likely to have a preterm birth, compared with women who had endoscopy 1 year before or after pregnancy, but were not more highly predisposed to SGA, stillbirth, or congenital malformations. Additionally, when data on multiple pregnancies carried by the same mother were compared, no correlation was found between endoscopy and gestational age or birth weight, if the mother was exposed to endoscopy during only one of the pregnancies.
“Earlier recommendations suggest that endoscopy should only be performed during pregnancy if there are strong indications, and if so, not during the second trimester, [but] our study shows that endoscopy is unlikely to have a more than marginal influence on pregnancy outcome independently of trimester,” the authors concluded. “Neither does it seem that sigmoidoscopy is preferable to a full colonoscopy in the pregnant woman.”
Regarding the latter conclusion, the authors clarified that “it is possible that in women with particularly severe gastrointestinal disease where endoscopy is inevitable, the physician will prefer a sigmoidoscopy rather than a full colonoscopy, and under such circumstances the sigmoidoscopy will signal a more severe disease.”
The investigators also noted that their study had several limitations, including not knowing the length of time each endoscopy took, the sedatives and bowel preparations that were used, the patient’s position during the procedure, and the indication that prompted the endoscopy in the first place.
The study was funded by grants from the Swedish Society of Medicine and the Stockholm County Council, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Ludvigsson and his coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.
Women who undergo an endoscopy during pregnancy are increasing the chances that their baby will be born preterm, or be small for gestational age (SGA), according to research published in the February issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.016).
“Research in pregnancy outcome in women undergoing endoscopy during pregnancy is scarce,” wrote the authors, led by Jonas F. Ludvigsson, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, adding that there are nine studies with original data on a total of 379 pregnant women undergoing endoscopy; two of these studies examined pregnancy outcome in upper endoscopy (n = 143), two examined pregnancy outcome in sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (n = 116), and four examined pregnancy outcome in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 120).
Additionally, the authors noted that, to their knowledge, there are no studies that offer data on the relative risk of endoscopy during pregnancy, and none that followed up subjects after birth. Of the few studies that do exist, a handful conclude that endoscopy during pregnancy is actually safe, but do not include data on stillbirths and neonatal deaths that did not occur immediately after patients underwent endoscopy, which could compromise that data.
To address the lack of reliable research on the effect of endoscopy on pregnancy, Dr. Ludvigsson and his coinvestigators launched a nationwide study of pregnancies in Sweden that occurred between 1992 and 2011, all of which were registered in the Swedish Medical Birth Registry and the Swedish Patient Registry. The databases revealed 2,025 upper endoscopies, 1,109 lower endoscopies, and 58 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies, for a total of 3,052 pregnancies exposed to endoscopy over that time period.
The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of preterm birth and stillbirth in this population. To measure this, the investigators used adjusted relative risk (ARR), calculated via Poisson regression by using data on 1,589,173 pregnancies that were not exposed to endoscopy as reference.
“Stillbirth is recorded from 22 completed gestational weeks since mid-2008, and before that from gestational week 28. Gestational age was determined using ultrasound, and when ultrasound data were missing, we used the first day of the last menstrual period for pregnancy start,” the authors wrote.
The results showed that mothers who had any kind of endoscopy during pregnancy were more likely to experience a preterm birth or give birth to a baby who was SGA, with the ARR being 1.54 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.75) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07-1.57), respectively. However, the risk of other adverse effects, such as stillbirth or congenital malformation, was not significant: Stillbirth ARR was 1.45 (95% CI, 0.87-2.40) and congenital malformation ARR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.83-1.20).
Women who were exposed to endoscopy during pregnancy were more likely to have a preterm birth, compared with women who had endoscopy 1 year before or after pregnancy, but were not more highly predisposed to SGA, stillbirth, or congenital malformations. Additionally, when data on multiple pregnancies carried by the same mother were compared, no correlation was found between endoscopy and gestational age or birth weight, if the mother was exposed to endoscopy during only one of the pregnancies.
“Earlier recommendations suggest that endoscopy should only be performed during pregnancy if there are strong indications, and if so, not during the second trimester, [but] our study shows that endoscopy is unlikely to have a more than marginal influence on pregnancy outcome independently of trimester,” the authors concluded. “Neither does it seem that sigmoidoscopy is preferable to a full colonoscopy in the pregnant woman.”
Regarding the latter conclusion, the authors clarified that “it is possible that in women with particularly severe gastrointestinal disease where endoscopy is inevitable, the physician will prefer a sigmoidoscopy rather than a full colonoscopy, and under such circumstances the sigmoidoscopy will signal a more severe disease.”
The investigators also noted that their study had several limitations, including not knowing the length of time each endoscopy took, the sedatives and bowel preparations that were used, the patient’s position during the procedure, and the indication that prompted the endoscopy in the first place.
The study was funded by grants from the Swedish Society of Medicine and the Stockholm County Council, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Ludvigsson and his coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.
Women who undergo an endoscopy during pregnancy are increasing the chances that their baby will be born preterm, or be small for gestational age (SGA), according to research published in the February issue of Gastroenterology (doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.016).
“Research in pregnancy outcome in women undergoing endoscopy during pregnancy is scarce,” wrote the authors, led by Jonas F. Ludvigsson, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, adding that there are nine studies with original data on a total of 379 pregnant women undergoing endoscopy; two of these studies examined pregnancy outcome in upper endoscopy (n = 143), two examined pregnancy outcome in sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (n = 116), and four examined pregnancy outcome in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 120).
Additionally, the authors noted that, to their knowledge, there are no studies that offer data on the relative risk of endoscopy during pregnancy, and none that followed up subjects after birth. Of the few studies that do exist, a handful conclude that endoscopy during pregnancy is actually safe, but do not include data on stillbirths and neonatal deaths that did not occur immediately after patients underwent endoscopy, which could compromise that data.
To address the lack of reliable research on the effect of endoscopy on pregnancy, Dr. Ludvigsson and his coinvestigators launched a nationwide study of pregnancies in Sweden that occurred between 1992 and 2011, all of which were registered in the Swedish Medical Birth Registry and the Swedish Patient Registry. The databases revealed 2,025 upper endoscopies, 1,109 lower endoscopies, and 58 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies, for a total of 3,052 pregnancies exposed to endoscopy over that time period.
The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of preterm birth and stillbirth in this population. To measure this, the investigators used adjusted relative risk (ARR), calculated via Poisson regression by using data on 1,589,173 pregnancies that were not exposed to endoscopy as reference.
“Stillbirth is recorded from 22 completed gestational weeks since mid-2008, and before that from gestational week 28. Gestational age was determined using ultrasound, and when ultrasound data were missing, we used the first day of the last menstrual period for pregnancy start,” the authors wrote.
The results showed that mothers who had any kind of endoscopy during pregnancy were more likely to experience a preterm birth or give birth to a baby who was SGA, with the ARR being 1.54 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.75) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07-1.57), respectively. However, the risk of other adverse effects, such as stillbirth or congenital malformation, was not significant: Stillbirth ARR was 1.45 (95% CI, 0.87-2.40) and congenital malformation ARR was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.83-1.20).
Women who were exposed to endoscopy during pregnancy were more likely to have a preterm birth, compared with women who had endoscopy 1 year before or after pregnancy, but were not more highly predisposed to SGA, stillbirth, or congenital malformations. Additionally, when data on multiple pregnancies carried by the same mother were compared, no correlation was found between endoscopy and gestational age or birth weight, if the mother was exposed to endoscopy during only one of the pregnancies.
“Earlier recommendations suggest that endoscopy should only be performed during pregnancy if there are strong indications, and if so, not during the second trimester, [but] our study shows that endoscopy is unlikely to have a more than marginal influence on pregnancy outcome independently of trimester,” the authors concluded. “Neither does it seem that sigmoidoscopy is preferable to a full colonoscopy in the pregnant woman.”
Regarding the latter conclusion, the authors clarified that “it is possible that in women with particularly severe gastrointestinal disease where endoscopy is inevitable, the physician will prefer a sigmoidoscopy rather than a full colonoscopy, and under such circumstances the sigmoidoscopy will signal a more severe disease.”
The investigators also noted that their study had several limitations, including not knowing the length of time each endoscopy took, the sedatives and bowel preparations that were used, the patient’s position during the procedure, and the indication that prompted the endoscopy in the first place.
The study was funded by grants from the Swedish Society of Medicine and the Stockholm County Council, and the Swedish Research Council. Dr. Ludvigsson and his coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The adjusted relative risk of preterm birth was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.36-1.75) and was 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07-1.57) for SGA.
Data source: A population-based cohort study of 3,052 pregnancies in Sweden exposed to endoscopy from 1992 through 2011.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine and the Stockholm County Council, and the Swedish Research Council. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.
Insurance-mandated diet pre–bariatric surgery deemed harmful
NEW ORLEANS – The widespread health insurance industry practice of requiring obese patients to spend months on a physician-supervised strict weight-loss diet prior to approving coverage of bariatric surgery accomplishes nothing constructive, Charles J. Keith Jr., MD, reported at Obesity Week 2016.
“We found that insurance-mandated preoperative diets were associated with a significant delay in treatment, no improvement in postoperative complication rates, and also no improvement in weight loss outcomes. If anything, after adjusting for potential confounding variables, the outcomes were inferior to the group that wasn’t required to diet,” said Dr. Keith of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Keith presented a retrospective review from the prospectively collected Alabama University bariatric surgery database, which included all 284 patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy during 2009-2013. A total of 79% of the patients had private health insurance that required their participation in a preoperative physician-guided diet program, typically for 6 months. The other 21% did not have a mandatory preoperative diet requirement; the great majority of this group were covered under Medicare, which doesn’t require a diet program before bariatric surgery. The two groups weren’t significantly different in initial or immediately preoperative weight or body mass index, obesity-related comorbid conditions, type of bariatric surgery, or socioeconomic status.
The mean time from initial clinic visit to bariatric surgery was significantly shorter in the group with no mandated preoperative diet, at 154 vs. 218 days. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, operation type, and comorbidities, the no-mandatory-diet group had a significantly greater reduction in BMI 6 months post surgery: a mean loss of 12.2 kg/m2, compared with 10.9 kg/m2 in the group required to participate in a preoperative diet. The difference was even greater at 2 years follow-up: a mean decrease of 14.9 kg/m2 in the no-diet group, vs. 10.7 kg/m2 in the mandatory diet group. The no-diet group experienced a mean 33% weight loss at 2 years, significantly better than the 25% weight loss in the mandatory diet group, Dr. Keith reported at the meeting, presented by the Obesity Society of America and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Audience discussion showed that the insurance-mandated preoperative diet requirement is a hot button issue in the bariatric surgical community.
“I think these insurance programs are specifically designed to delay care,” one surgeon asserted.
Another bariatric surgeon commented that while Dr. Keith’s study will be helpful in advocating for removal of the mandatory preoperative diet requirement, what’s really needed are studies that demonstrate just how often this requirement results in drop out from bariatric programs by patients who’ve grown discouraged by yet-another unsuccessful attempt at nonsurgical weight loss.
Dr. Keith reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study.
NEW ORLEANS – The widespread health insurance industry practice of requiring obese patients to spend months on a physician-supervised strict weight-loss diet prior to approving coverage of bariatric surgery accomplishes nothing constructive, Charles J. Keith Jr., MD, reported at Obesity Week 2016.
“We found that insurance-mandated preoperative diets were associated with a significant delay in treatment, no improvement in postoperative complication rates, and also no improvement in weight loss outcomes. If anything, after adjusting for potential confounding variables, the outcomes were inferior to the group that wasn’t required to diet,” said Dr. Keith of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Keith presented a retrospective review from the prospectively collected Alabama University bariatric surgery database, which included all 284 patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy during 2009-2013. A total of 79% of the patients had private health insurance that required their participation in a preoperative physician-guided diet program, typically for 6 months. The other 21% did not have a mandatory preoperative diet requirement; the great majority of this group were covered under Medicare, which doesn’t require a diet program before bariatric surgery. The two groups weren’t significantly different in initial or immediately preoperative weight or body mass index, obesity-related comorbid conditions, type of bariatric surgery, or socioeconomic status.
The mean time from initial clinic visit to bariatric surgery was significantly shorter in the group with no mandated preoperative diet, at 154 vs. 218 days. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, operation type, and comorbidities, the no-mandatory-diet group had a significantly greater reduction in BMI 6 months post surgery: a mean loss of 12.2 kg/m2, compared with 10.9 kg/m2 in the group required to participate in a preoperative diet. The difference was even greater at 2 years follow-up: a mean decrease of 14.9 kg/m2 in the no-diet group, vs. 10.7 kg/m2 in the mandatory diet group. The no-diet group experienced a mean 33% weight loss at 2 years, significantly better than the 25% weight loss in the mandatory diet group, Dr. Keith reported at the meeting, presented by the Obesity Society of America and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Audience discussion showed that the insurance-mandated preoperative diet requirement is a hot button issue in the bariatric surgical community.
“I think these insurance programs are specifically designed to delay care,” one surgeon asserted.
Another bariatric surgeon commented that while Dr. Keith’s study will be helpful in advocating for removal of the mandatory preoperative diet requirement, what’s really needed are studies that demonstrate just how often this requirement results in drop out from bariatric programs by patients who’ve grown discouraged by yet-another unsuccessful attempt at nonsurgical weight loss.
Dr. Keith reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study.
NEW ORLEANS – The widespread health insurance industry practice of requiring obese patients to spend months on a physician-supervised strict weight-loss diet prior to approving coverage of bariatric surgery accomplishes nothing constructive, Charles J. Keith Jr., MD, reported at Obesity Week 2016.
“We found that insurance-mandated preoperative diets were associated with a significant delay in treatment, no improvement in postoperative complication rates, and also no improvement in weight loss outcomes. If anything, after adjusting for potential confounding variables, the outcomes were inferior to the group that wasn’t required to diet,” said Dr. Keith of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Dr. Keith presented a retrospective review from the prospectively collected Alabama University bariatric surgery database, which included all 284 patients who underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy during 2009-2013. A total of 79% of the patients had private health insurance that required their participation in a preoperative physician-guided diet program, typically for 6 months. The other 21% did not have a mandatory preoperative diet requirement; the great majority of this group were covered under Medicare, which doesn’t require a diet program before bariatric surgery. The two groups weren’t significantly different in initial or immediately preoperative weight or body mass index, obesity-related comorbid conditions, type of bariatric surgery, or socioeconomic status.
The mean time from initial clinic visit to bariatric surgery was significantly shorter in the group with no mandated preoperative diet, at 154 vs. 218 days. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, operation type, and comorbidities, the no-mandatory-diet group had a significantly greater reduction in BMI 6 months post surgery: a mean loss of 12.2 kg/m2, compared with 10.9 kg/m2 in the group required to participate in a preoperative diet. The difference was even greater at 2 years follow-up: a mean decrease of 14.9 kg/m2 in the no-diet group, vs. 10.7 kg/m2 in the mandatory diet group. The no-diet group experienced a mean 33% weight loss at 2 years, significantly better than the 25% weight loss in the mandatory diet group, Dr. Keith reported at the meeting, presented by the Obesity Society of America and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
Audience discussion showed that the insurance-mandated preoperative diet requirement is a hot button issue in the bariatric surgical community.
“I think these insurance programs are specifically designed to delay care,” one surgeon asserted.
Another bariatric surgeon commented that while Dr. Keith’s study will be helpful in advocating for removal of the mandatory preoperative diet requirement, what’s really needed are studies that demonstrate just how often this requirement results in drop out from bariatric programs by patients who’ve grown discouraged by yet-another unsuccessful attempt at nonsurgical weight loss.
Dr. Keith reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his study.
Key clinical point:
Major finding: At follow-up 2 years after bariatric surgery, patients who were required by their insurance company to participate in a physician-supervised preoperative diet program had an adjusted mean 25% weight loss, a significantly worse outcome than the mean 33% weight loss among patients with no such requirement.
Data source: This was a retrospective analysis of 284 patients in a prospectively collected university bariatric surgery database.
Disclosures: The study presenter reported having no relevant financial interests.
Unless it is diagnosed, obesity won’t be treated
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity has been formally diagnosed in less than half of patients with a body-mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher in the Cleveland Clinic’s large multispecialty database, and Bartolome Burguera, MD, believes it’s the same story elsewhere.
“I think pretty much all over the country obesity is really not well diagnosed,” Dr. Burguera, director of obesity programs at the Cleveland Clinic, said at Obesity Week 2016.
And that which hasn’t been diagnosed doesn’t get treated.
The diagnosis rate went up with higher BMIs; still, of the 25,137 patients with obesity class 3 as defined by a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or higher, only 75% had a formal diagnosis of obesity in their record, the endocrinologist said at the meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
“For many years, physicians thought that obesity is not a disease. And even though it was considered a disease by some, they didn’t feel they had the tools, the knowledge, the support, the medications, or the time to take care of obesity, especially when they thought of it as a self-inflicted disease,” Dr. Burguera explained in an interview. He believes physician attitudes are slowly changing.
“In our clinic we’ve taken measures to change attitudes, for sure. Now, when we look in the electronic health record we get an automatic alert if the patient has a BMI of 30 or more,” he said.
“I think, in general, many more people now think of obesity as a disease. But it’s a chronic disease and you have to have chronic therapy. We have to make sure we make the diagnosis, and once you make the diagnosis you have to discuss treatment with the patient. If you don’t feel comfortable for whatever reason, I think you have to refer the patient to a colleague to take care of the obesity. Because when you take care of the obesity all the comorbidities get better: the diabetes, the blood pressure, the cholesterol. Obesity is the primary problem in so many other comorbidities. We have put little effort to this point in taking care of the obesity. We’ve put more effort into treating the diabetes and the other comorbidities,” Dr. Burguera said.
The Medicare obesity benefit provides reimbursement in primary care settings for intensive behavioral therapy with face-to-face counseling and motivational interviewing. The billing code is G0447. Coverage is provided for 22 visits over the course of a year, each lasting 15 minutes.
Dr. Batsis presented highlights of his published serial cross-sectional analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data for 2012 and 2013. Among Medicare beneficiaries eligible for the obesity benefit because they had a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or above, only 0.35% used the benefit in 2012. There was a tiny uptick to 0.6% in 2013, but even in the tiny fraction of eligible patients who availed themselves of the benefit, the average number of behavioral therapy sessions was just 2.1 visits out of the 22 for which physician reimbursement is available (Obesity. 2016 Sep;24[9]:1983-8).
“Let’s hope the 2014 data look a little better,” commented Dr. Batsis of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.
There was marked regional variation in utilization of the Medicare obesity benefit across the U.S. in 2013. Rates were highest in Colorado – the state with the lowest obesity rate in the country – as well as Nebraska, Wisconsin, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Rates were lowest across the Southwest.
Dr. Burguera’s study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Batsis reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity has been formally diagnosed in less than half of patients with a body-mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher in the Cleveland Clinic’s large multispecialty database, and Bartolome Burguera, MD, believes it’s the same story elsewhere.
“I think pretty much all over the country obesity is really not well diagnosed,” Dr. Burguera, director of obesity programs at the Cleveland Clinic, said at Obesity Week 2016.
And that which hasn’t been diagnosed doesn’t get treated.
The diagnosis rate went up with higher BMIs; still, of the 25,137 patients with obesity class 3 as defined by a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or higher, only 75% had a formal diagnosis of obesity in their record, the endocrinologist said at the meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
“For many years, physicians thought that obesity is not a disease. And even though it was considered a disease by some, they didn’t feel they had the tools, the knowledge, the support, the medications, or the time to take care of obesity, especially when they thought of it as a self-inflicted disease,” Dr. Burguera explained in an interview. He believes physician attitudes are slowly changing.
“In our clinic we’ve taken measures to change attitudes, for sure. Now, when we look in the electronic health record we get an automatic alert if the patient has a BMI of 30 or more,” he said.
“I think, in general, many more people now think of obesity as a disease. But it’s a chronic disease and you have to have chronic therapy. We have to make sure we make the diagnosis, and once you make the diagnosis you have to discuss treatment with the patient. If you don’t feel comfortable for whatever reason, I think you have to refer the patient to a colleague to take care of the obesity. Because when you take care of the obesity all the comorbidities get better: the diabetes, the blood pressure, the cholesterol. Obesity is the primary problem in so many other comorbidities. We have put little effort to this point in taking care of the obesity. We’ve put more effort into treating the diabetes and the other comorbidities,” Dr. Burguera said.
The Medicare obesity benefit provides reimbursement in primary care settings for intensive behavioral therapy with face-to-face counseling and motivational interviewing. The billing code is G0447. Coverage is provided for 22 visits over the course of a year, each lasting 15 minutes.
Dr. Batsis presented highlights of his published serial cross-sectional analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data for 2012 and 2013. Among Medicare beneficiaries eligible for the obesity benefit because they had a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or above, only 0.35% used the benefit in 2012. There was a tiny uptick to 0.6% in 2013, but even in the tiny fraction of eligible patients who availed themselves of the benefit, the average number of behavioral therapy sessions was just 2.1 visits out of the 22 for which physician reimbursement is available (Obesity. 2016 Sep;24[9]:1983-8).
“Let’s hope the 2014 data look a little better,” commented Dr. Batsis of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.
There was marked regional variation in utilization of the Medicare obesity benefit across the U.S. in 2013. Rates were highest in Colorado – the state with the lowest obesity rate in the country – as well as Nebraska, Wisconsin, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Rates were lowest across the Southwest.
Dr. Burguera’s study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Batsis reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Obesity has been formally diagnosed in less than half of patients with a body-mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher in the Cleveland Clinic’s large multispecialty database, and Bartolome Burguera, MD, believes it’s the same story elsewhere.
“I think pretty much all over the country obesity is really not well diagnosed,” Dr. Burguera, director of obesity programs at the Cleveland Clinic, said at Obesity Week 2016.
And that which hasn’t been diagnosed doesn’t get treated.
The diagnosis rate went up with higher BMIs; still, of the 25,137 patients with obesity class 3 as defined by a BMI of 40 kg/m2 or higher, only 75% had a formal diagnosis of obesity in their record, the endocrinologist said at the meeting presented by the Obesity Society and the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.
“For many years, physicians thought that obesity is not a disease. And even though it was considered a disease by some, they didn’t feel they had the tools, the knowledge, the support, the medications, or the time to take care of obesity, especially when they thought of it as a self-inflicted disease,” Dr. Burguera explained in an interview. He believes physician attitudes are slowly changing.
“In our clinic we’ve taken measures to change attitudes, for sure. Now, when we look in the electronic health record we get an automatic alert if the patient has a BMI of 30 or more,” he said.
“I think, in general, many more people now think of obesity as a disease. But it’s a chronic disease and you have to have chronic therapy. We have to make sure we make the diagnosis, and once you make the diagnosis you have to discuss treatment with the patient. If you don’t feel comfortable for whatever reason, I think you have to refer the patient to a colleague to take care of the obesity. Because when you take care of the obesity all the comorbidities get better: the diabetes, the blood pressure, the cholesterol. Obesity is the primary problem in so many other comorbidities. We have put little effort to this point in taking care of the obesity. We’ve put more effort into treating the diabetes and the other comorbidities,” Dr. Burguera said.
The Medicare obesity benefit provides reimbursement in primary care settings for intensive behavioral therapy with face-to-face counseling and motivational interviewing. The billing code is G0447. Coverage is provided for 22 visits over the course of a year, each lasting 15 minutes.
Dr. Batsis presented highlights of his published serial cross-sectional analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data for 2012 and 2013. Among Medicare beneficiaries eligible for the obesity benefit because they had a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or above, only 0.35% used the benefit in 2012. There was a tiny uptick to 0.6% in 2013, but even in the tiny fraction of eligible patients who availed themselves of the benefit, the average number of behavioral therapy sessions was just 2.1 visits out of the 22 for which physician reimbursement is available (Obesity. 2016 Sep;24[9]:1983-8).
“Let’s hope the 2014 data look a little better,” commented Dr. Batsis of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.
There was marked regional variation in utilization of the Medicare obesity benefit across the U.S. in 2013. Rates were highest in Colorado – the state with the lowest obesity rate in the country – as well as Nebraska, Wisconsin, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Rates were lowest across the Southwest.
Dr. Burguera’s study was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Batsis reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
AT OBESITY WEEK 2016
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Only 48% of a large group of patients with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or higher had a formal diagnosis of obesity in their medical record.
Data source: This was a cross-sectional study of the electronic health records of nearly 325,000 active patients in the Cleveland Clinic database, 41.5% of whom had a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or higher.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Novo Nordisk.