User login
Mitochondrial DNA variant increases gallstone risk
A mitochondrial DNA variant may increase the risk of gallstone disease more than fourfold, according to investigators.
Mitochondrial DNA 827A>G disrupts mitochondrial function and leads to abnormal cholesterol transport, which increases gallstone development, reported Dayan Sun, of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that the findings add support to a genetic role in gallstone development, which could allow for identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of preventive measures.
“The etiology of gallstone disease is multifactorial; age, sex, pregnancy, diet (macronutrients, alcohol, and coffee), and other factors are involved,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Moreover, the significant familial predisposition and ethnic differences in prevalence of this disease indicate the potential influences of genetic factors.”
In 2002, Nakeeb and colleagues reported that at least 30% of gallstone disease cases stemmed from genetic factors. And genetics may play an even greater role in certain populations, such as Native Americans, among whom more than 70% of women have gallstone disease, based on a study by Everhart and colleagues.
According to Ms. Sun and colleagues, a variety of genetic drivers of gallstone disease have been identified, such as ABCG8, identified as the most common genetic risk factor by at least one study, along with a list of other rare mutations, such as one affecting CFTR that leads to altered bile composition.
Based on previous research that linked mitochondrial DNA variants with metabolic defects and, more specifically, aberrations in lipid metabolism, as well as an observed “maternal bias in the maternal transmission of gallstone disease” that suggest mitochondrial influence, the investigators looked for patterns specifically in mitochondrial DNA variants among patients with gallstones.
The study enrolled 104 probands with confirmed gallstone disease and 300 unrelated controls. After collecting DNA samples from all participants, the investigators sequenced mitochondrial DNA HVS1 regions. A comparison of haplogroups showed that B4b’d’e’j was more common among patients with gallstone disease than among controls (odds ratio, 4.428; P = .00012), and further analysis pinpointed 827A>G, a variant in 12S ribosomal RNA.
“During the evolutionary history of modern humans, haplogroup B4 might have originated in East Asia approximately 40,000 years ago,” the investigators wrote, noting that B2, a subhaplogroup of B4, “was a founder haplogroup and expanded in the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago).”
According to the investigators, this may explain why Native Americans have a higher prevalence of gallstones than East Asians (14%-35% vs. 3%-12%) because they are more often carriers of B4 (14%-44% vs. 2%-8%).
The investigators sought to characterize the impact that the 827A>G variant has on mitochondrial function and found effects ranging from lower respiratory chain complex activity, diminished mitochondrial function, activated mitochondrial protein quality control and retrograde signaling pathways, abnormal lipid metabolism, and abnormal cholesterol transport processes.
For example, the investigators investigated respiratory chain complex activity by creating two sister branch haplogroup cell models, including six cybrids for 827A and six more for 827G, which is how they detected the lower activity. Another step the investigators took was corroborating this finding by detecting OXPHOS function in the 827A and 827G cybrids to determine mitochondrial function.
“In summary, our study demonstrates a potential link between mitochondrial DNA 827A>G and gallstone disease,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings provide a significant biological basis for the clinical diagnosis and prevention of gallstone disease in the future.”
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the 111 Project, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Scientific and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Cholesterol gallstone disease results from imbalances in cholesterol metabolism. Other than the well-known lifestyle risk factors, there is also a strong genetic predisposition to gallstone formation. This study by Sun and colleagues examined the possible association between mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variants and cholesterol gallstone development because of the importance of the mitochondria in cellular metabolism and the increased maternal transmission of gallstone disease.
This study highlighted gallstone disease as a multifactorial condition that results from complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Interestingly, the allele frequency of the 827A>G mtDNA variant was noted to be higher in Native Americans, which may partially explain the high prevalence of gallstones in this population. Further studies are needed to identify additional genetic risk factors in ethnic groups that also have a significant burden of cholelithiasis.
Xiao Zhao, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine of division of digestive diseases in the department of medicine at Columbia University, New York. She reported having no conflicts of interest.
Cholesterol gallstone disease results from imbalances in cholesterol metabolism. Other than the well-known lifestyle risk factors, there is also a strong genetic predisposition to gallstone formation. This study by Sun and colleagues examined the possible association between mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variants and cholesterol gallstone development because of the importance of the mitochondria in cellular metabolism and the increased maternal transmission of gallstone disease.
This study highlighted gallstone disease as a multifactorial condition that results from complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Interestingly, the allele frequency of the 827A>G mtDNA variant was noted to be higher in Native Americans, which may partially explain the high prevalence of gallstones in this population. Further studies are needed to identify additional genetic risk factors in ethnic groups that also have a significant burden of cholelithiasis.
Xiao Zhao, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine of division of digestive diseases in the department of medicine at Columbia University, New York. She reported having no conflicts of interest.
Cholesterol gallstone disease results from imbalances in cholesterol metabolism. Other than the well-known lifestyle risk factors, there is also a strong genetic predisposition to gallstone formation. This study by Sun and colleagues examined the possible association between mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variants and cholesterol gallstone development because of the importance of the mitochondria in cellular metabolism and the increased maternal transmission of gallstone disease.
This study highlighted gallstone disease as a multifactorial condition that results from complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Interestingly, the allele frequency of the 827A>G mtDNA variant was noted to be higher in Native Americans, which may partially explain the high prevalence of gallstones in this population. Further studies are needed to identify additional genetic risk factors in ethnic groups that also have a significant burden of cholelithiasis.
Xiao Zhao, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine of division of digestive diseases in the department of medicine at Columbia University, New York. She reported having no conflicts of interest.
A mitochondrial DNA variant may increase the risk of gallstone disease more than fourfold, according to investigators.
Mitochondrial DNA 827A>G disrupts mitochondrial function and leads to abnormal cholesterol transport, which increases gallstone development, reported Dayan Sun, of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that the findings add support to a genetic role in gallstone development, which could allow for identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of preventive measures.
“The etiology of gallstone disease is multifactorial; age, sex, pregnancy, diet (macronutrients, alcohol, and coffee), and other factors are involved,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Moreover, the significant familial predisposition and ethnic differences in prevalence of this disease indicate the potential influences of genetic factors.”
In 2002, Nakeeb and colleagues reported that at least 30% of gallstone disease cases stemmed from genetic factors. And genetics may play an even greater role in certain populations, such as Native Americans, among whom more than 70% of women have gallstone disease, based on a study by Everhart and colleagues.
According to Ms. Sun and colleagues, a variety of genetic drivers of gallstone disease have been identified, such as ABCG8, identified as the most common genetic risk factor by at least one study, along with a list of other rare mutations, such as one affecting CFTR that leads to altered bile composition.
Based on previous research that linked mitochondrial DNA variants with metabolic defects and, more specifically, aberrations in lipid metabolism, as well as an observed “maternal bias in the maternal transmission of gallstone disease” that suggest mitochondrial influence, the investigators looked for patterns specifically in mitochondrial DNA variants among patients with gallstones.
The study enrolled 104 probands with confirmed gallstone disease and 300 unrelated controls. After collecting DNA samples from all participants, the investigators sequenced mitochondrial DNA HVS1 regions. A comparison of haplogroups showed that B4b’d’e’j was more common among patients with gallstone disease than among controls (odds ratio, 4.428; P = .00012), and further analysis pinpointed 827A>G, a variant in 12S ribosomal RNA.
“During the evolutionary history of modern humans, haplogroup B4 might have originated in East Asia approximately 40,000 years ago,” the investigators wrote, noting that B2, a subhaplogroup of B4, “was a founder haplogroup and expanded in the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago).”
According to the investigators, this may explain why Native Americans have a higher prevalence of gallstones than East Asians (14%-35% vs. 3%-12%) because they are more often carriers of B4 (14%-44% vs. 2%-8%).
The investigators sought to characterize the impact that the 827A>G variant has on mitochondrial function and found effects ranging from lower respiratory chain complex activity, diminished mitochondrial function, activated mitochondrial protein quality control and retrograde signaling pathways, abnormal lipid metabolism, and abnormal cholesterol transport processes.
For example, the investigators investigated respiratory chain complex activity by creating two sister branch haplogroup cell models, including six cybrids for 827A and six more for 827G, which is how they detected the lower activity. Another step the investigators took was corroborating this finding by detecting OXPHOS function in the 827A and 827G cybrids to determine mitochondrial function.
“In summary, our study demonstrates a potential link between mitochondrial DNA 827A>G and gallstone disease,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings provide a significant biological basis for the clinical diagnosis and prevention of gallstone disease in the future.”
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the 111 Project, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Scientific and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
A mitochondrial DNA variant may increase the risk of gallstone disease more than fourfold, according to investigators.
Mitochondrial DNA 827A>G disrupts mitochondrial function and leads to abnormal cholesterol transport, which increases gallstone development, reported Dayan Sun, of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.
The investigators noted that the findings add support to a genetic role in gallstone development, which could allow for identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of preventive measures.
“The etiology of gallstone disease is multifactorial; age, sex, pregnancy, diet (macronutrients, alcohol, and coffee), and other factors are involved,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Moreover, the significant familial predisposition and ethnic differences in prevalence of this disease indicate the potential influences of genetic factors.”
In 2002, Nakeeb and colleagues reported that at least 30% of gallstone disease cases stemmed from genetic factors. And genetics may play an even greater role in certain populations, such as Native Americans, among whom more than 70% of women have gallstone disease, based on a study by Everhart and colleagues.
According to Ms. Sun and colleagues, a variety of genetic drivers of gallstone disease have been identified, such as ABCG8, identified as the most common genetic risk factor by at least one study, along with a list of other rare mutations, such as one affecting CFTR that leads to altered bile composition.
Based on previous research that linked mitochondrial DNA variants with metabolic defects and, more specifically, aberrations in lipid metabolism, as well as an observed “maternal bias in the maternal transmission of gallstone disease” that suggest mitochondrial influence, the investigators looked for patterns specifically in mitochondrial DNA variants among patients with gallstones.
The study enrolled 104 probands with confirmed gallstone disease and 300 unrelated controls. After collecting DNA samples from all participants, the investigators sequenced mitochondrial DNA HVS1 regions. A comparison of haplogroups showed that B4b’d’e’j was more common among patients with gallstone disease than among controls (odds ratio, 4.428; P = .00012), and further analysis pinpointed 827A>G, a variant in 12S ribosomal RNA.
“During the evolutionary history of modern humans, haplogroup B4 might have originated in East Asia approximately 40,000 years ago,” the investigators wrote, noting that B2, a subhaplogroup of B4, “was a founder haplogroup and expanded in the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago).”
According to the investigators, this may explain why Native Americans have a higher prevalence of gallstones than East Asians (14%-35% vs. 3%-12%) because they are more often carriers of B4 (14%-44% vs. 2%-8%).
The investigators sought to characterize the impact that the 827A>G variant has on mitochondrial function and found effects ranging from lower respiratory chain complex activity, diminished mitochondrial function, activated mitochondrial protein quality control and retrograde signaling pathways, abnormal lipid metabolism, and abnormal cholesterol transport processes.
For example, the investigators investigated respiratory chain complex activity by creating two sister branch haplogroup cell models, including six cybrids for 827A and six more for 827G, which is how they detected the lower activity. Another step the investigators took was corroborating this finding by detecting OXPHOS function in the 827A and 827G cybrids to determine mitochondrial function.
“In summary, our study demonstrates a potential link between mitochondrial DNA 827A>G and gallstone disease,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings provide a significant biological basis for the clinical diagnosis and prevention of gallstone disease in the future.”
The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the 111 Project, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Scientific and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
FROM CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Automated software accurately generates ERCP quality reports
Modified endoscopy documentation software can automatically generate endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) quality metrics, based on a trial at two referral centers.
Providers were prompted during procedures, and inputting any missed data took providers less than 30 additional seconds per patient. The approach led to highly accurate quality reports, lead author Gregory A. Coté, MD, MS, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The investigators suggested that these findings may lead to the kind of quality reports already used for colonoscopy, which are easier to produce. Such reports are important, they wrote, as the U.S. health care system shifts to value-based reimbursement models, which in turn puts greater scrutiny on the quality of endoscopic procedures. However, doing so with ERCP isn’t entirely straightforward.
“Measuring adherence to ERCP quality indicators is especially challenging given: variance in indications, intraprocedural maneuvers, potential outcomes of a complex procedure, and variability in physician report documentation,” Dr. Coté and colleagues wrote. “In order to operationalize robust tracking of clinically relevant adherence to ERCP quality indicators in clinical practice – that is, to provide real-time feedback to providers, health systems, payors, and patients – an automated system of measurement must be developed.”
The quality indicators used in the study were largely drawn from an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology task force document, with exclusion of those that were subjective or required systematic follow-up. The investigators modified existing endoscopy documentation software at two referral centers to include mandatory, structured data fields, principally with inclusion of quality improvements deemed high priority by the society consensus document, study authors, or both. For instance, providers were obligated to select a specific indication instead of various, synonymous terms (for example, “biliary stricture” vs. “common bile duct stricture”). Examples of quality indicators included successful cannulation of the desired duct, successful retrieval of stone less than 10 mm, or successful placement of a bile duct stent when indicated. Endoscopists were also required to note the presence of postoperative foregut anatomy or presence of existing sphincterotomy, variables which serve to stratefy the quality indicator outcome for degree of difficulty and allow appropriate comparisons of data. In addition, the study authors included inquiries about use of rectal indomethacin, use of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent, and documentation of need for repeat ERCP, follow-up x-ray, or both.
After 9 months, the system recorded 1,376 ERCP procedures conducted by eight providers, with a median annualized volume of 237 procedures (range, 37-336). Almost one-third (29%) of the patients had not had prior sphincterotomy.
Automated reporting of ERCP was compared with manual record review, which confirmed high (98%-100%) accuracy. This high level of accuracy “obviates the need for manual adjudication of medical records,” the investigators wrote.
They used data from one provider to create a template report card, and while exact comparisons across providers and institutions were not published, an example report card that was published with the study showed how such comparisons could be generated in the real world.
“The tool presented in this study allows for an objective assessment of ERCP performance which can provide explicit feedback to providers and allow transparent assessment of quality outcomes; it has the potential to improve the quality of ERCP akin to what has been demonstrated using colonoscopy report cards,” the investigators wrote. “Importantly, this can be achieved with minimal alteration to providers’ routine procedure documentation.”
Dr. Coté and colleagues also noted that the software modifications “can be implemented in other endoscopy units using the same or similar software.”
Taking the project to the next level would require widespread collaboration, according to the investigators.
“A key next step is to operationalize the transfer of data across multiple institutions, allowing for the creation of interim, standard-quality indicator reports that could be disseminated to providers, health systems, and payors,” they wrote. “If applied to a national cohort, this tool could accurately assess the current landscape of ERCP quality and provide tremendous opportunities for systematic improvement.”
One author disclosed a relationship with Provation Medical, but the remaining authors declared no relevant conflicts.
Quality indicators have been proposed to improve the outcome of patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The path toward quality improvement begins with selection of parameters, which matters a great deal and have wide performance variation. Endoscopists then track their own performance, compare it with targets based on community standards, and improve their patients’ outcomes using this feedback. Great progress has been made in the area of tracking and improving adenoma detection rate, an indicator closely tied to reduction in colorectal cancer mortality.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a high-stakes procedure with great potential therapeutic benefit and with a small but significant risk of life-threatening complications such as pancreatitis. This study by Coté and colleagues illuminates an effective and straightforward step to making ERCP quality improvement feasible. The report card concept is not new, but the novel innovation is to leverage the use of required fields in the electronic report generator. Seamlessly, this produces nuanced reports that link provider performance to patient characteristics and indication. The authors have shown extremely high accuracy of automatic electronic ERCP quality indicator recording, compared with manual data collection. Such data have clear and immediate utility in the credentialing process and quality improvement arena. With this means of recording outcomes, deidentified ERCP quality data might soon join colonoscopy data in national data repositories such as the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, and government quality reporting on ERCP outcomes would become much more feasible. Fellow self-assessment and logging of progress could also be facilitated if report generators were further amended to require recording of fellow participation.
Jonathan Cohen, MD, FASGE, is a clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health. He reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Quality indicators have been proposed to improve the outcome of patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The path toward quality improvement begins with selection of parameters, which matters a great deal and have wide performance variation. Endoscopists then track their own performance, compare it with targets based on community standards, and improve their patients’ outcomes using this feedback. Great progress has been made in the area of tracking and improving adenoma detection rate, an indicator closely tied to reduction in colorectal cancer mortality.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a high-stakes procedure with great potential therapeutic benefit and with a small but significant risk of life-threatening complications such as pancreatitis. This study by Coté and colleagues illuminates an effective and straightforward step to making ERCP quality improvement feasible. The report card concept is not new, but the novel innovation is to leverage the use of required fields in the electronic report generator. Seamlessly, this produces nuanced reports that link provider performance to patient characteristics and indication. The authors have shown extremely high accuracy of automatic electronic ERCP quality indicator recording, compared with manual data collection. Such data have clear and immediate utility in the credentialing process and quality improvement arena. With this means of recording outcomes, deidentified ERCP quality data might soon join colonoscopy data in national data repositories such as the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, and government quality reporting on ERCP outcomes would become much more feasible. Fellow self-assessment and logging of progress could also be facilitated if report generators were further amended to require recording of fellow participation.
Jonathan Cohen, MD, FASGE, is a clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health. He reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Quality indicators have been proposed to improve the outcome of patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. The path toward quality improvement begins with selection of parameters, which matters a great deal and have wide performance variation. Endoscopists then track their own performance, compare it with targets based on community standards, and improve their patients’ outcomes using this feedback. Great progress has been made in the area of tracking and improving adenoma detection rate, an indicator closely tied to reduction in colorectal cancer mortality.
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a high-stakes procedure with great potential therapeutic benefit and with a small but significant risk of life-threatening complications such as pancreatitis. This study by Coté and colleagues illuminates an effective and straightforward step to making ERCP quality improvement feasible. The report card concept is not new, but the novel innovation is to leverage the use of required fields in the electronic report generator. Seamlessly, this produces nuanced reports that link provider performance to patient characteristics and indication. The authors have shown extremely high accuracy of automatic electronic ERCP quality indicator recording, compared with manual data collection. Such data have clear and immediate utility in the credentialing process and quality improvement arena. With this means of recording outcomes, deidentified ERCP quality data might soon join colonoscopy data in national data repositories such as the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, and government quality reporting on ERCP outcomes would become much more feasible. Fellow self-assessment and logging of progress could also be facilitated if report generators were further amended to require recording of fellow participation.
Jonathan Cohen, MD, FASGE, is a clinical professor of medicine at New York University Langone Health. He reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
Modified endoscopy documentation software can automatically generate endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) quality metrics, based on a trial at two referral centers.
Providers were prompted during procedures, and inputting any missed data took providers less than 30 additional seconds per patient. The approach led to highly accurate quality reports, lead author Gregory A. Coté, MD, MS, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The investigators suggested that these findings may lead to the kind of quality reports already used for colonoscopy, which are easier to produce. Such reports are important, they wrote, as the U.S. health care system shifts to value-based reimbursement models, which in turn puts greater scrutiny on the quality of endoscopic procedures. However, doing so with ERCP isn’t entirely straightforward.
“Measuring adherence to ERCP quality indicators is especially challenging given: variance in indications, intraprocedural maneuvers, potential outcomes of a complex procedure, and variability in physician report documentation,” Dr. Coté and colleagues wrote. “In order to operationalize robust tracking of clinically relevant adherence to ERCP quality indicators in clinical practice – that is, to provide real-time feedback to providers, health systems, payors, and patients – an automated system of measurement must be developed.”
The quality indicators used in the study were largely drawn from an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology task force document, with exclusion of those that were subjective or required systematic follow-up. The investigators modified existing endoscopy documentation software at two referral centers to include mandatory, structured data fields, principally with inclusion of quality improvements deemed high priority by the society consensus document, study authors, or both. For instance, providers were obligated to select a specific indication instead of various, synonymous terms (for example, “biliary stricture” vs. “common bile duct stricture”). Examples of quality indicators included successful cannulation of the desired duct, successful retrieval of stone less than 10 mm, or successful placement of a bile duct stent when indicated. Endoscopists were also required to note the presence of postoperative foregut anatomy or presence of existing sphincterotomy, variables which serve to stratefy the quality indicator outcome for degree of difficulty and allow appropriate comparisons of data. In addition, the study authors included inquiries about use of rectal indomethacin, use of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent, and documentation of need for repeat ERCP, follow-up x-ray, or both.
After 9 months, the system recorded 1,376 ERCP procedures conducted by eight providers, with a median annualized volume of 237 procedures (range, 37-336). Almost one-third (29%) of the patients had not had prior sphincterotomy.
Automated reporting of ERCP was compared with manual record review, which confirmed high (98%-100%) accuracy. This high level of accuracy “obviates the need for manual adjudication of medical records,” the investigators wrote.
They used data from one provider to create a template report card, and while exact comparisons across providers and institutions were not published, an example report card that was published with the study showed how such comparisons could be generated in the real world.
“The tool presented in this study allows for an objective assessment of ERCP performance which can provide explicit feedback to providers and allow transparent assessment of quality outcomes; it has the potential to improve the quality of ERCP akin to what has been demonstrated using colonoscopy report cards,” the investigators wrote. “Importantly, this can be achieved with minimal alteration to providers’ routine procedure documentation.”
Dr. Coté and colleagues also noted that the software modifications “can be implemented in other endoscopy units using the same or similar software.”
Taking the project to the next level would require widespread collaboration, according to the investigators.
“A key next step is to operationalize the transfer of data across multiple institutions, allowing for the creation of interim, standard-quality indicator reports that could be disseminated to providers, health systems, and payors,” they wrote. “If applied to a national cohort, this tool could accurately assess the current landscape of ERCP quality and provide tremendous opportunities for systematic improvement.”
One author disclosed a relationship with Provation Medical, but the remaining authors declared no relevant conflicts.
Modified endoscopy documentation software can automatically generate endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) quality metrics, based on a trial at two referral centers.
Providers were prompted during procedures, and inputting any missed data took providers less than 30 additional seconds per patient. The approach led to highly accurate quality reports, lead author Gregory A. Coté, MD, MS, of the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
The investigators suggested that these findings may lead to the kind of quality reports already used for colonoscopy, which are easier to produce. Such reports are important, they wrote, as the U.S. health care system shifts to value-based reimbursement models, which in turn puts greater scrutiny on the quality of endoscopic procedures. However, doing so with ERCP isn’t entirely straightforward.
“Measuring adherence to ERCP quality indicators is especially challenging given: variance in indications, intraprocedural maneuvers, potential outcomes of a complex procedure, and variability in physician report documentation,” Dr. Coté and colleagues wrote. “In order to operationalize robust tracking of clinically relevant adherence to ERCP quality indicators in clinical practice – that is, to provide real-time feedback to providers, health systems, payors, and patients – an automated system of measurement must be developed.”
The quality indicators used in the study were largely drawn from an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/American College of Gastroenterology task force document, with exclusion of those that were subjective or required systematic follow-up. The investigators modified existing endoscopy documentation software at two referral centers to include mandatory, structured data fields, principally with inclusion of quality improvements deemed high priority by the society consensus document, study authors, or both. For instance, providers were obligated to select a specific indication instead of various, synonymous terms (for example, “biliary stricture” vs. “common bile duct stricture”). Examples of quality indicators included successful cannulation of the desired duct, successful retrieval of stone less than 10 mm, or successful placement of a bile duct stent when indicated. Endoscopists were also required to note the presence of postoperative foregut anatomy or presence of existing sphincterotomy, variables which serve to stratefy the quality indicator outcome for degree of difficulty and allow appropriate comparisons of data. In addition, the study authors included inquiries about use of rectal indomethacin, use of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent, and documentation of need for repeat ERCP, follow-up x-ray, or both.
After 9 months, the system recorded 1,376 ERCP procedures conducted by eight providers, with a median annualized volume of 237 procedures (range, 37-336). Almost one-third (29%) of the patients had not had prior sphincterotomy.
Automated reporting of ERCP was compared with manual record review, which confirmed high (98%-100%) accuracy. This high level of accuracy “obviates the need for manual adjudication of medical records,” the investigators wrote.
They used data from one provider to create a template report card, and while exact comparisons across providers and institutions were not published, an example report card that was published with the study showed how such comparisons could be generated in the real world.
“The tool presented in this study allows for an objective assessment of ERCP performance which can provide explicit feedback to providers and allow transparent assessment of quality outcomes; it has the potential to improve the quality of ERCP akin to what has been demonstrated using colonoscopy report cards,” the investigators wrote. “Importantly, this can be achieved with minimal alteration to providers’ routine procedure documentation.”
Dr. Coté and colleagues also noted that the software modifications “can be implemented in other endoscopy units using the same or similar software.”
Taking the project to the next level would require widespread collaboration, according to the investigators.
“A key next step is to operationalize the transfer of data across multiple institutions, allowing for the creation of interim, standard-quality indicator reports that could be disseminated to providers, health systems, and payors,” they wrote. “If applied to a national cohort, this tool could accurately assess the current landscape of ERCP quality and provide tremendous opportunities for systematic improvement.”
One author disclosed a relationship with Provation Medical, but the remaining authors declared no relevant conflicts.
FROM TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Test could help patients with pancreatic cysts avoid unneeded surgery
A test that uses machine learning may improve the management of patients with pancreatic cysts, sparing some of them unnecessary surgery, a cohort study suggests.
The test, called CompCyst, integrates clinical, imaging, and biomarker data. It proved more accurate than the current standard of care for correctly determining whether patients should be discharged from follow-up, immediately operated on, or monitored.
Rachel Karchin, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering in Baltimore, reported these results at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract IA-13).
“Preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic cysts and managing patients who present with a cyst are a clinical conundrum because pancreatic cancer is so deadly, while the decision to surgically resect a cyst is complicated by the danger of the surgery, which has high morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Karchin explained. “The challenge of the diagnostic test is to place patients into one of three groups: those who should be discharged, who should be operated on, and who should be monitored.”
High sensitivity is important for the operate and monitor groups to ensure identification of all patients needing these approaches, whereas higher specificity is important for the discharge group to avoid falsely classifying premalignant cysts, Dr. Karchin said.
She and her colleagues applied machine learning to this classification challenge, using data from 862 patients who had undergone resection of pancreatic cysts at 16 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. All patients had a known cyst histopathology, which served as the gold standard, and a known clinical management strategy (discharge, operate, or monitor).
The investigators used a multivariate organization of combinatorial alterations algorithm that integrates clinical features, imaging characteristics, cyst fluid genetics, and serum biomarkers to create classifiers. This algorithm can be trained to maximize sensitivity, maximize specificity, or balance these metrics, Dr. Karchin noted.
The resulting test, CompCyst, was trained using data from 436 of the patients and then validated in the remaining 426 patients.
In the validation cohort, for classifying patients who should be discharged from care, the test had a sensitivity of 46% and a specificity of 100%, according to results reported at the conference and published previously (Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav4772).
For immediately operating, CompCyst had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 54%. And for monitoring the patient, the test had a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 30%.
When CompCyst was compared against the standard of care based on conventional clinical and imaging criteria alone, the former was more accurate. CompCyst correctly identified larger shares of patients who should have been discharged (60% vs. 19%) and who should have been monitored (49% vs. 34%), and the test identified a similar share of patients who should have immediately had an operation (91% vs. 89%).
“The takeaway from this is that standard of care is sending too many patients unnecessarily to surgery,” Dr. Karchin commented. “The CompCyst test, with application of the three classifiers sequentially – discharge, operate, or monitor – could reduce unnecessary surgery by 60% or more based on our calculations.”
“While our study was retrospective, it shows promising results in reducing unnecessary surgeries, compared to current standard of care,” she said, adding that a prospective study is planned next.
“In 10-12 weeks, this CompCyst diagnostic test is going to be available at Johns Hopkins for patients. I’m very excited about that,” Dr. Karchin concluded. “We hope that our study shows the potential of combining clinical, imaging, and genetic features with machine learning to improve clinical judgment about many diseases.”
Dr. Karchin disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, the Michael Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Research Foundation, the Benjamin Baker Scholarship, and the National Institutes of Health.
Help your patients understand pancreatitis testing and treatment options, symptoms and complications by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/pancreatitis.
A test that uses machine learning may improve the management of patients with pancreatic cysts, sparing some of them unnecessary surgery, a cohort study suggests.
The test, called CompCyst, integrates clinical, imaging, and biomarker data. It proved more accurate than the current standard of care for correctly determining whether patients should be discharged from follow-up, immediately operated on, or monitored.
Rachel Karchin, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering in Baltimore, reported these results at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract IA-13).
“Preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic cysts and managing patients who present with a cyst are a clinical conundrum because pancreatic cancer is so deadly, while the decision to surgically resect a cyst is complicated by the danger of the surgery, which has high morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Karchin explained. “The challenge of the diagnostic test is to place patients into one of three groups: those who should be discharged, who should be operated on, and who should be monitored.”
High sensitivity is important for the operate and monitor groups to ensure identification of all patients needing these approaches, whereas higher specificity is important for the discharge group to avoid falsely classifying premalignant cysts, Dr. Karchin said.
She and her colleagues applied machine learning to this classification challenge, using data from 862 patients who had undergone resection of pancreatic cysts at 16 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. All patients had a known cyst histopathology, which served as the gold standard, and a known clinical management strategy (discharge, operate, or monitor).
The investigators used a multivariate organization of combinatorial alterations algorithm that integrates clinical features, imaging characteristics, cyst fluid genetics, and serum biomarkers to create classifiers. This algorithm can be trained to maximize sensitivity, maximize specificity, or balance these metrics, Dr. Karchin noted.
The resulting test, CompCyst, was trained using data from 436 of the patients and then validated in the remaining 426 patients.
In the validation cohort, for classifying patients who should be discharged from care, the test had a sensitivity of 46% and a specificity of 100%, according to results reported at the conference and published previously (Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav4772).
For immediately operating, CompCyst had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 54%. And for monitoring the patient, the test had a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 30%.
When CompCyst was compared against the standard of care based on conventional clinical and imaging criteria alone, the former was more accurate. CompCyst correctly identified larger shares of patients who should have been discharged (60% vs. 19%) and who should have been monitored (49% vs. 34%), and the test identified a similar share of patients who should have immediately had an operation (91% vs. 89%).
“The takeaway from this is that standard of care is sending too many patients unnecessarily to surgery,” Dr. Karchin commented. “The CompCyst test, with application of the three classifiers sequentially – discharge, operate, or monitor – could reduce unnecessary surgery by 60% or more based on our calculations.”
“While our study was retrospective, it shows promising results in reducing unnecessary surgeries, compared to current standard of care,” she said, adding that a prospective study is planned next.
“In 10-12 weeks, this CompCyst diagnostic test is going to be available at Johns Hopkins for patients. I’m very excited about that,” Dr. Karchin concluded. “We hope that our study shows the potential of combining clinical, imaging, and genetic features with machine learning to improve clinical judgment about many diseases.”
Dr. Karchin disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, the Michael Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Research Foundation, the Benjamin Baker Scholarship, and the National Institutes of Health.
Help your patients understand pancreatitis testing and treatment options, symptoms and complications by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/pancreatitis.
A test that uses machine learning may improve the management of patients with pancreatic cysts, sparing some of them unnecessary surgery, a cohort study suggests.
The test, called CompCyst, integrates clinical, imaging, and biomarker data. It proved more accurate than the current standard of care for correctly determining whether patients should be discharged from follow-up, immediately operated on, or monitored.
Rachel Karchin, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering in Baltimore, reported these results at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Artificial Intelligence, Diagnosis, and Imaging (Abstract IA-13).
“Preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic cysts and managing patients who present with a cyst are a clinical conundrum because pancreatic cancer is so deadly, while the decision to surgically resect a cyst is complicated by the danger of the surgery, which has high morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Karchin explained. “The challenge of the diagnostic test is to place patients into one of three groups: those who should be discharged, who should be operated on, and who should be monitored.”
High sensitivity is important for the operate and monitor groups to ensure identification of all patients needing these approaches, whereas higher specificity is important for the discharge group to avoid falsely classifying premalignant cysts, Dr. Karchin said.
She and her colleagues applied machine learning to this classification challenge, using data from 862 patients who had undergone resection of pancreatic cysts at 16 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia. All patients had a known cyst histopathology, which served as the gold standard, and a known clinical management strategy (discharge, operate, or monitor).
The investigators used a multivariate organization of combinatorial alterations algorithm that integrates clinical features, imaging characteristics, cyst fluid genetics, and serum biomarkers to create classifiers. This algorithm can be trained to maximize sensitivity, maximize specificity, or balance these metrics, Dr. Karchin noted.
The resulting test, CompCyst, was trained using data from 436 of the patients and then validated in the remaining 426 patients.
In the validation cohort, for classifying patients who should be discharged from care, the test had a sensitivity of 46% and a specificity of 100%, according to results reported at the conference and published previously (Sci Transl Med. 2019 Jul 19. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav4772).
For immediately operating, CompCyst had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 54%. And for monitoring the patient, the test had a sensitivity of 99% and a specificity of 30%.
When CompCyst was compared against the standard of care based on conventional clinical and imaging criteria alone, the former was more accurate. CompCyst correctly identified larger shares of patients who should have been discharged (60% vs. 19%) and who should have been monitored (49% vs. 34%), and the test identified a similar share of patients who should have immediately had an operation (91% vs. 89%).
“The takeaway from this is that standard of care is sending too many patients unnecessarily to surgery,” Dr. Karchin commented. “The CompCyst test, with application of the three classifiers sequentially – discharge, operate, or monitor – could reduce unnecessary surgery by 60% or more based on our calculations.”
“While our study was retrospective, it shows promising results in reducing unnecessary surgeries, compared to current standard of care,” she said, adding that a prospective study is planned next.
“In 10-12 weeks, this CompCyst diagnostic test is going to be available at Johns Hopkins for patients. I’m very excited about that,” Dr. Karchin concluded. “We hope that our study shows the potential of combining clinical, imaging, and genetic features with machine learning to improve clinical judgment about many diseases.”
Dr. Karchin disclosed no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, the Michael Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Research Foundation, the Benjamin Baker Scholarship, and the National Institutes of Health.
Help your patients understand pancreatitis testing and treatment options, symptoms and complications by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/pancreatitis.
FROM AACR: AI, DIAGNOSIS, AND IMAGING 2021
High cost of pancreatic enzymes a barrier for patients with cancer
Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is often an essential component of the treatment regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer, but it can be very pricey.
“Out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of enzymes for Medicare beneficiaries can be as high as $1,000,” commented Arjun Gupta, MD, an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.
This can contribute to financial toxicity for patients who already have a high symptom burden and distress. The high cost of this supportive care has been underappreciated, he said.
In addition to its use for patients with pancreatic cancer, PERT is also prescribed to patients with chronic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. These enzymes can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition for patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, he explained.
“Out-of-pocket costs for two large pancreas enzyme capsules, which are often required for a meal, may be $15. And these need to be taken at every meal and may be more expensive than the meal itself,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Gupta led a new study which showed that, among Medicare beneficiaries, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations. Patients’ costs, including deductibles and coinsurance, ranged from $853 to $1,536.
The out-of-pocket costs were lower after patients met the deductible ($673; range, $527-$1,210) and continued to decrease after reaching catastrophic coverage ($135; range, $105-$242).
The findings were presented at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
Dr. Gupta noted that there has been a lot of publicity about very expensive anticancer drugs, but little has been said about the costs of products used in supportive care. “While it’s true that many patients cannot afford the drugs, there are patient-assistance programs where they can often get them free of charge,” he said. “But supportive care agents, such as those for constipation or the enzymes – all of those can nickel and dime you and end up being very costly.”
These agents add substantially to the drug cost burden. “Some patients also need insulin, which is also insanely expensive,” he said.
One of the reasons for the high cost of PERT is that there are very few options, and all the available products are brand-name agents. Dr. Gupta noted that clinicians often underprescribe pancreatic enzymes in clinical practice. “Because of this, we wanted to look at what are the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients directly when they’re prescribed an optimal regimen of pancreatic enzymes,” he said.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Gupta and colleagues assessed PERT costs using the Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020. Point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation were calculated among Part D standalone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.
Costs were then assessed using three scenarios: the standard-benefit design, with a $435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met; 25% coinsurance to fill a prescription after the deductible while in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out of pocket; and 5% coinsurance once catastrophic coverage is reached.
Across 3,974 plans nationwide, four formulations in 17 different doses were covered by Medicare plans during the study period. Doses ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 lipase units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89.
The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840.
Dr. Gupta noted that a “good-sized meal often requires 80,000 units of lipase, or two of the very largest pills. Of note, these pills need to be taken meal after meal every meal throughout a patient’s life.”
Prescribers and dietitians try to find the least expensive options, including patient-assistance programs, but in the end, they are sometimes forced to underprescribe. “Some patients will go and buy over-the-counter pancreatic enzyme supplements, and it seems like a good way to cut costs,” said Dr. Gupta, “but it is not recommended for people with pancreatic cancer.”
The problem with these formulations is that they are not regulated. “The enzyme content in them is also minuscule, in the range of hundreds of units instead of the 50,000 units needed per meal,” he said. “Patients end up spending much more for ineffective therapies.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is often an essential component of the treatment regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer, but it can be very pricey.
“Out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of enzymes for Medicare beneficiaries can be as high as $1,000,” commented Arjun Gupta, MD, an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.
This can contribute to financial toxicity for patients who already have a high symptom burden and distress. The high cost of this supportive care has been underappreciated, he said.
In addition to its use for patients with pancreatic cancer, PERT is also prescribed to patients with chronic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. These enzymes can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition for patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, he explained.
“Out-of-pocket costs for two large pancreas enzyme capsules, which are often required for a meal, may be $15. And these need to be taken at every meal and may be more expensive than the meal itself,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Gupta led a new study which showed that, among Medicare beneficiaries, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations. Patients’ costs, including deductibles and coinsurance, ranged from $853 to $1,536.
The out-of-pocket costs were lower after patients met the deductible ($673; range, $527-$1,210) and continued to decrease after reaching catastrophic coverage ($135; range, $105-$242).
The findings were presented at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
Dr. Gupta noted that there has been a lot of publicity about very expensive anticancer drugs, but little has been said about the costs of products used in supportive care. “While it’s true that many patients cannot afford the drugs, there are patient-assistance programs where they can often get them free of charge,” he said. “But supportive care agents, such as those for constipation or the enzymes – all of those can nickel and dime you and end up being very costly.”
These agents add substantially to the drug cost burden. “Some patients also need insulin, which is also insanely expensive,” he said.
One of the reasons for the high cost of PERT is that there are very few options, and all the available products are brand-name agents. Dr. Gupta noted that clinicians often underprescribe pancreatic enzymes in clinical practice. “Because of this, we wanted to look at what are the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients directly when they’re prescribed an optimal regimen of pancreatic enzymes,” he said.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Gupta and colleagues assessed PERT costs using the Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020. Point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation were calculated among Part D standalone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.
Costs were then assessed using three scenarios: the standard-benefit design, with a $435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met; 25% coinsurance to fill a prescription after the deductible while in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out of pocket; and 5% coinsurance once catastrophic coverage is reached.
Across 3,974 plans nationwide, four formulations in 17 different doses were covered by Medicare plans during the study period. Doses ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 lipase units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89.
The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840.
Dr. Gupta noted that a “good-sized meal often requires 80,000 units of lipase, or two of the very largest pills. Of note, these pills need to be taken meal after meal every meal throughout a patient’s life.”
Prescribers and dietitians try to find the least expensive options, including patient-assistance programs, but in the end, they are sometimes forced to underprescribe. “Some patients will go and buy over-the-counter pancreatic enzyme supplements, and it seems like a good way to cut costs,” said Dr. Gupta, “but it is not recommended for people with pancreatic cancer.”
The problem with these formulations is that they are not regulated. “The enzyme content in them is also minuscule, in the range of hundreds of units instead of the 50,000 units needed per meal,” he said. “Patients end up spending much more for ineffective therapies.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) is often an essential component of the treatment regimen for patients with pancreatic cancer, but it can be very pricey.
“Out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of enzymes for Medicare beneficiaries can be as high as $1,000,” commented Arjun Gupta, MD, an oncology fellow at Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore.
This can contribute to financial toxicity for patients who already have a high symptom burden and distress. The high cost of this supportive care has been underappreciated, he said.
In addition to its use for patients with pancreatic cancer, PERT is also prescribed to patients with chronic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. These enzymes can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition for patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, he explained.
“Out-of-pocket costs for two large pancreas enzyme capsules, which are often required for a meal, may be $15. And these need to be taken at every meal and may be more expensive than the meal itself,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Gupta led a new study which showed that, among Medicare beneficiaries, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations. Patients’ costs, including deductibles and coinsurance, ranged from $853 to $1,536.
The out-of-pocket costs were lower after patients met the deductible ($673; range, $527-$1,210) and continued to decrease after reaching catastrophic coverage ($135; range, $105-$242).
The findings were presented at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
Dr. Gupta noted that there has been a lot of publicity about very expensive anticancer drugs, but little has been said about the costs of products used in supportive care. “While it’s true that many patients cannot afford the drugs, there are patient-assistance programs where they can often get them free of charge,” he said. “But supportive care agents, such as those for constipation or the enzymes – all of those can nickel and dime you and end up being very costly.”
These agents add substantially to the drug cost burden. “Some patients also need insulin, which is also insanely expensive,” he said.
One of the reasons for the high cost of PERT is that there are very few options, and all the available products are brand-name agents. Dr. Gupta noted that clinicians often underprescribe pancreatic enzymes in clinical practice. “Because of this, we wanted to look at what are the estimated out-of-pocket costs for patients directly when they’re prescribed an optimal regimen of pancreatic enzymes,” he said.
Study details
For their study, Dr. Gupta and colleagues assessed PERT costs using the Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020. Point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation were calculated among Part D standalone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.
Costs were then assessed using three scenarios: the standard-benefit design, with a $435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met; 25% coinsurance to fill a prescription after the deductible while in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out of pocket; and 5% coinsurance once catastrophic coverage is reached.
Across 3,974 plans nationwide, four formulations in 17 different doses were covered by Medicare plans during the study period. Doses ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 lipase units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89.
The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840.
Dr. Gupta noted that a “good-sized meal often requires 80,000 units of lipase, or two of the very largest pills. Of note, these pills need to be taken meal after meal every meal throughout a patient’s life.”
Prescribers and dietitians try to find the least expensive options, including patient-assistance programs, but in the end, they are sometimes forced to underprescribe. “Some patients will go and buy over-the-counter pancreatic enzyme supplements, and it seems like a good way to cut costs,” said Dr. Gupta, “but it is not recommended for people with pancreatic cancer.”
The problem with these formulations is that they are not regulated. “The enzyme content in them is also minuscule, in the range of hundreds of units instead of the 50,000 units needed per meal,” he said. “Patients end up spending much more for ineffective therapies.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bezafibrate eased pruritus in patients with fibrosing cholangiopathies
Once-daily treatment with the lipid-lowering agent bezafibrate significantly reduced moderate to severe pruritis among patients with cholestasis, according to the findings of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Fibrates for Itch, or FITCH).
Two weeks after completing treatment, 45% of bezafibrate recipients met the primary endpoint, reporting at least a 50% decrease in itch on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), compared with 11% of patients in the placebo group (P = .003). There was also a statistically significant decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline (35% vs. 6%, respectively; P = .03) that corresponded with improved pruritus, and bezafibrate significantly improved both morning and evening pruritus. Bezafibrate was not associated with myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, or serum alanine transaminase elevations but did lead to a 3% increase in serum creatinine that “was not different from the placebo group,” wrote Elsemieke de Vries, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology & hepatology at Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam, and of department of gastroenterology & metabolism at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and associates. Their report is in Gastroenterology.
Up to 70% of patients with cholangitis experience pruritus. Current guidelines recommend management with cholestyramine, rifampin, naltrexone, or sertraline, but efficacy and tolerability are subpar, the investigators wrote. In a recent study, a selective inhibitor of an ileal bile acid transporter (GSK2330672) reduced pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis but frequently was associated with diarrhea. In another recent study of patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had responded inadequately to ursodeoxycholic acid (BEZURSO), bezafibrate induced biochemical responses that correlated with improvements in pruritis (a secondary endpoint).
Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been implicated in cholangiopathy-associated pruritus but is not found in bile. However, biliary drainage rapidly improves severe itch in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Therefore, Dr. de Vries and associates hypothesized that an as-yet unknown factor in bile contributes to pruritus in fibrosing cholangiopathies and that bezafibrate reduces itch by “alleviating hepatobiliary cholestasis and injury and, thereby, reducing formation and biliary secretion of this biliary factor X.”
The FITCH study, which was conducted at seven academic hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Spain, enrolled 74 patients 18 years and older with primary biliary cholangitis or primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis who reported having pruritus with an intensity of at least 5 on the 10-point VAS at baseline (with 10 indicating “worst itch possible”; median, 7; interquartile range, 7-8). Patients with hepatocellular cholestasis caused by medications or pregnancy were excluded. Ages among most participants ranged from 30s to 50s, and approximately two-thirds were female. None had received another pruritus treatment within 10 days of enrollment, and prior treatment with bezafibrate was not allowed. Patients received once-daily bezafibrate (400 mg) or placebo tablets for 21 days, with visits to the outpatient clinic on days 0, 21, and 35.
There were no serious adverse events or new safety signals. One event of oral pain was considered possibly related to bezafibrate, and itch and jaundice worsened in two patients after completing treatment. As in the 24-month BEZURSO study, increases in serum creatinine were modest and similar between groups (3% with bezafibrate and 5% with placebo). Myalgia and increases in serum alanine transaminase were observed in BEZURSO but not in FITCH. However, the short treatment duration provides “no judgment on long-term safety [of bezafibrate] in complex diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or primary biliary cholangitis,” the investigators wrote.
Four patients discontinued treatment – three stopped placebo because of “unbearable pruritus,” and one stopped bezafibrate after developing acute bacterial cholangitis that required emergency treatment. Although FITCH excluded patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate was less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, one such patient was accidentally enrolled. Her serum creatinine, measured in mmol/L, rose from 121 at baseline to 148 on day 21, and then dropped to 134 after 2 weeks off treatment.
The trial was supported by patient donations, the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: de Vries E et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.001.
Itch really matters to patients with cholestatic liver diseases, and effective treatment can make a significant difference to life quality. Although therapies exist for cholestatic itch (such as cholestyramine, rifampin, and naltrexone) recent data from the United Kingdom and United States suggest that therapy in practice is poor. It is likely that this results, at least in part, from the limitations of the existing treatments which can be unpleasant to take (cholestyramine) or difficult to use because of monitoring needs and side-effects (rifampin and naltrexone). Itch has therefore been identified as an area of real unmet need in cholestatic disease and there are a number of trials in progress or in set-up. This is extremely positive for patients.
The FITCH trial is one of the first of these “new generation” cholestatic itch trials to report and explore the efficacy of the PPAR-agonist bezafibrate in a mixed cholestatic population. Clear benefit was seen with around 50% of all disease groups meeting the primary endpoint and good drug tolerance. Is bezafibrate therefore the answer to cholestatic itch? The cautious answer is ... possibly, but more experience is needed. The trial duration was only 21 days, which means that long-term safety and efficacy remain to be explored. Bezafibrate is now being used in practice to treat cholestatic itch with effects similar to those reported in the trial. It is therefore clearly an important new option. Where it ultimately ends up in the treatment pathway only time and experience will tell.
David Jones, BM, BCh, PhD, is a professor of liver immunology at Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He reported having no disclosures relevant to this commentary.
Itch really matters to patients with cholestatic liver diseases, and effective treatment can make a significant difference to life quality. Although therapies exist for cholestatic itch (such as cholestyramine, rifampin, and naltrexone) recent data from the United Kingdom and United States suggest that therapy in practice is poor. It is likely that this results, at least in part, from the limitations of the existing treatments which can be unpleasant to take (cholestyramine) or difficult to use because of monitoring needs and side-effects (rifampin and naltrexone). Itch has therefore been identified as an area of real unmet need in cholestatic disease and there are a number of trials in progress or in set-up. This is extremely positive for patients.
The FITCH trial is one of the first of these “new generation” cholestatic itch trials to report and explore the efficacy of the PPAR-agonist bezafibrate in a mixed cholestatic population. Clear benefit was seen with around 50% of all disease groups meeting the primary endpoint and good drug tolerance. Is bezafibrate therefore the answer to cholestatic itch? The cautious answer is ... possibly, but more experience is needed. The trial duration was only 21 days, which means that long-term safety and efficacy remain to be explored. Bezafibrate is now being used in practice to treat cholestatic itch with effects similar to those reported in the trial. It is therefore clearly an important new option. Where it ultimately ends up in the treatment pathway only time and experience will tell.
David Jones, BM, BCh, PhD, is a professor of liver immunology at Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He reported having no disclosures relevant to this commentary.
Itch really matters to patients with cholestatic liver diseases, and effective treatment can make a significant difference to life quality. Although therapies exist for cholestatic itch (such as cholestyramine, rifampin, and naltrexone) recent data from the United Kingdom and United States suggest that therapy in practice is poor. It is likely that this results, at least in part, from the limitations of the existing treatments which can be unpleasant to take (cholestyramine) or difficult to use because of monitoring needs and side-effects (rifampin and naltrexone). Itch has therefore been identified as an area of real unmet need in cholestatic disease and there are a number of trials in progress or in set-up. This is extremely positive for patients.
The FITCH trial is one of the first of these “new generation” cholestatic itch trials to report and explore the efficacy of the PPAR-agonist bezafibrate in a mixed cholestatic population. Clear benefit was seen with around 50% of all disease groups meeting the primary endpoint and good drug tolerance. Is bezafibrate therefore the answer to cholestatic itch? The cautious answer is ... possibly, but more experience is needed. The trial duration was only 21 days, which means that long-term safety and efficacy remain to be explored. Bezafibrate is now being used in practice to treat cholestatic itch with effects similar to those reported in the trial. It is therefore clearly an important new option. Where it ultimately ends up in the treatment pathway only time and experience will tell.
David Jones, BM, BCh, PhD, is a professor of liver immunology at Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. He reported having no disclosures relevant to this commentary.
Once-daily treatment with the lipid-lowering agent bezafibrate significantly reduced moderate to severe pruritis among patients with cholestasis, according to the findings of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Fibrates for Itch, or FITCH).
Two weeks after completing treatment, 45% of bezafibrate recipients met the primary endpoint, reporting at least a 50% decrease in itch on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), compared with 11% of patients in the placebo group (P = .003). There was also a statistically significant decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline (35% vs. 6%, respectively; P = .03) that corresponded with improved pruritus, and bezafibrate significantly improved both morning and evening pruritus. Bezafibrate was not associated with myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, or serum alanine transaminase elevations but did lead to a 3% increase in serum creatinine that “was not different from the placebo group,” wrote Elsemieke de Vries, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology & hepatology at Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam, and of department of gastroenterology & metabolism at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and associates. Their report is in Gastroenterology.
Up to 70% of patients with cholangitis experience pruritus. Current guidelines recommend management with cholestyramine, rifampin, naltrexone, or sertraline, but efficacy and tolerability are subpar, the investigators wrote. In a recent study, a selective inhibitor of an ileal bile acid transporter (GSK2330672) reduced pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis but frequently was associated with diarrhea. In another recent study of patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had responded inadequately to ursodeoxycholic acid (BEZURSO), bezafibrate induced biochemical responses that correlated with improvements in pruritis (a secondary endpoint).
Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been implicated in cholangiopathy-associated pruritus but is not found in bile. However, biliary drainage rapidly improves severe itch in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Therefore, Dr. de Vries and associates hypothesized that an as-yet unknown factor in bile contributes to pruritus in fibrosing cholangiopathies and that bezafibrate reduces itch by “alleviating hepatobiliary cholestasis and injury and, thereby, reducing formation and biliary secretion of this biliary factor X.”
The FITCH study, which was conducted at seven academic hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Spain, enrolled 74 patients 18 years and older with primary biliary cholangitis or primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis who reported having pruritus with an intensity of at least 5 on the 10-point VAS at baseline (with 10 indicating “worst itch possible”; median, 7; interquartile range, 7-8). Patients with hepatocellular cholestasis caused by medications or pregnancy were excluded. Ages among most participants ranged from 30s to 50s, and approximately two-thirds were female. None had received another pruritus treatment within 10 days of enrollment, and prior treatment with bezafibrate was not allowed. Patients received once-daily bezafibrate (400 mg) or placebo tablets for 21 days, with visits to the outpatient clinic on days 0, 21, and 35.
There were no serious adverse events or new safety signals. One event of oral pain was considered possibly related to bezafibrate, and itch and jaundice worsened in two patients after completing treatment. As in the 24-month BEZURSO study, increases in serum creatinine were modest and similar between groups (3% with bezafibrate and 5% with placebo). Myalgia and increases in serum alanine transaminase were observed in BEZURSO but not in FITCH. However, the short treatment duration provides “no judgment on long-term safety [of bezafibrate] in complex diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or primary biliary cholangitis,” the investigators wrote.
Four patients discontinued treatment – three stopped placebo because of “unbearable pruritus,” and one stopped bezafibrate after developing acute bacterial cholangitis that required emergency treatment. Although FITCH excluded patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate was less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, one such patient was accidentally enrolled. Her serum creatinine, measured in mmol/L, rose from 121 at baseline to 148 on day 21, and then dropped to 134 after 2 weeks off treatment.
The trial was supported by patient donations, the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: de Vries E et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.001.
Once-daily treatment with the lipid-lowering agent bezafibrate significantly reduced moderate to severe pruritis among patients with cholestasis, according to the findings of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Fibrates for Itch, or FITCH).
Two weeks after completing treatment, 45% of bezafibrate recipients met the primary endpoint, reporting at least a 50% decrease in itch on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), compared with 11% of patients in the placebo group (P = .003). There was also a statistically significant decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP) levels from baseline (35% vs. 6%, respectively; P = .03) that corresponded with improved pruritus, and bezafibrate significantly improved both morning and evening pruritus. Bezafibrate was not associated with myalgia, rhabdomyolysis, or serum alanine transaminase elevations but did lead to a 3% increase in serum creatinine that “was not different from the placebo group,” wrote Elsemieke de Vries, MD, PhD, of the department of gastroenterology & hepatology at Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam, and of department of gastroenterology & metabolism at Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and associates. Their report is in Gastroenterology.
Up to 70% of patients with cholangitis experience pruritus. Current guidelines recommend management with cholestyramine, rifampin, naltrexone, or sertraline, but efficacy and tolerability are subpar, the investigators wrote. In a recent study, a selective inhibitor of an ileal bile acid transporter (GSK2330672) reduced pruritus in primary biliary cholangitis but frequently was associated with diarrhea. In another recent study of patients with primary biliary cholangitis who had responded inadequately to ursodeoxycholic acid (BEZURSO), bezafibrate induced biochemical responses that correlated with improvements in pruritis (a secondary endpoint).
Lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) has been implicated in cholangiopathy-associated pruritus but is not found in bile. However, biliary drainage rapidly improves severe itch in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. Therefore, Dr. de Vries and associates hypothesized that an as-yet unknown factor in bile contributes to pruritus in fibrosing cholangiopathies and that bezafibrate reduces itch by “alleviating hepatobiliary cholestasis and injury and, thereby, reducing formation and biliary secretion of this biliary factor X.”
The FITCH study, which was conducted at seven academic hospitals in the Netherlands and one in Spain, enrolled 74 patients 18 years and older with primary biliary cholangitis or primary or secondary sclerosing cholangitis who reported having pruritus with an intensity of at least 5 on the 10-point VAS at baseline (with 10 indicating “worst itch possible”; median, 7; interquartile range, 7-8). Patients with hepatocellular cholestasis caused by medications or pregnancy were excluded. Ages among most participants ranged from 30s to 50s, and approximately two-thirds were female. None had received another pruritus treatment within 10 days of enrollment, and prior treatment with bezafibrate was not allowed. Patients received once-daily bezafibrate (400 mg) or placebo tablets for 21 days, with visits to the outpatient clinic on days 0, 21, and 35.
There were no serious adverse events or new safety signals. One event of oral pain was considered possibly related to bezafibrate, and itch and jaundice worsened in two patients after completing treatment. As in the 24-month BEZURSO study, increases in serum creatinine were modest and similar between groups (3% with bezafibrate and 5% with placebo). Myalgia and increases in serum alanine transaminase were observed in BEZURSO but not in FITCH. However, the short treatment duration provides “no judgment on long-term safety [of bezafibrate] in complex diseases such as primary sclerosing cholangitis or primary biliary cholangitis,” the investigators wrote.
Four patients discontinued treatment – three stopped placebo because of “unbearable pruritus,” and one stopped bezafibrate after developing acute bacterial cholangitis that required emergency treatment. Although FITCH excluded patients whose estimated glomerular filtration rate was less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, one such patient was accidentally enrolled. Her serum creatinine, measured in mmol/L, rose from 121 at baseline to 148 on day 21, and then dropped to 134 after 2 weeks off treatment.
The trial was supported by patient donations, the Netherlands Society of Gastroenterology, and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. The investigators reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: de Vries E et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Oct 5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.001.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
FDA clears device to remove dead pancreatic tissue
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the EndoRotor System (Interscope, Inc.) for removal of necrotic tissue in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN).
“This device has shown its potential to provide a minimally invasive way to remove harmful necrotic pancreatic tissue in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis,” Charles Viviano, MD, PhD, acting director, Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Currently, in order to remove dead tissue from a patient’s necrotic pancreatic cavity, health care providers need to perform an invasive surgery or use other endoscopic tools not specifically indicated to treat this condition. With [this] marketing authorization, patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis now have a new treatment option,” said Dr. Viviano.
WOPN is a potentially deadly condition that occurs in about 15% of patients with severe pancreatitis. Often, the dead tissue must be removed.
The EndoRotor System is made up of a power console, foot control, specimen trap, and single-use catheter.
The device is used to perform endoscopic necrosectomy. In this procedure, a stent is used to create a portal between the stomach and the necrotic cavity in the pancreas to accommodate a standard endoscope through which the EndoRotor cuts and removes necrotized tissue.
The FDA approved the EndoRotor System on the basis of a clinical trial involving 30 patients with WOPN who underwent a total of 63 direct endoscopic necrosectomies with the EndoRotor System (average, 2.1 procedures per patient).
The effectiveness of the EndoRotor System was determined by how well it cleared pancreatic necrotic tissue measured during CT with contrast before and after the procedure, endoscopy, or MRI 14 to 28 days after the last procedure.
Results showed an average 85% reduction in the amount of necrotic tissue, with half of the patients having 98.5% clearance of necrotic tissue, the FDA said.
Three patients suffered procedure-related serious adverse events (10% complication rate). Two patients experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. One patient had a pneumoperitoneum and later died after suffering from sepsis and multiorgan system failure caused by massive collections of infected pancreatic necrotic tissue.
Other serious adverse events, which were thought to be due to the patient’s underlying condition and not related to the device or procedure, included hematemesis, deep vein thrombosis, and pancreatitis.
The EndoRotor System should not be used for patients with known or suspected pancreatic cancer, and the device will carry a boxed warning stating this.
The FDA said it knows of one patient who died from pancreatic cancer 3 months after having necrotic pancreatic tissue removed with the EndoRotor System.
“This patient did not have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer prior to treatment, although the patient’s outcome is believed to be unrelated to the device or procedure,” the FDA said.
The EndoRotor System should be used only after patients have undergone other procedures to drain the WOPN.
It is also not appropriate for patients with walled-off necrosis who have a documented pseudoaneurysm greater than 1 cm within the cavity or with intervening gastric varices or unavoidable blood vessels within the access tract.
The EndoRotor System was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the EndoRotor System (Interscope, Inc.) for removal of necrotic tissue in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN).
“This device has shown its potential to provide a minimally invasive way to remove harmful necrotic pancreatic tissue in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis,” Charles Viviano, MD, PhD, acting director, Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Currently, in order to remove dead tissue from a patient’s necrotic pancreatic cavity, health care providers need to perform an invasive surgery or use other endoscopic tools not specifically indicated to treat this condition. With [this] marketing authorization, patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis now have a new treatment option,” said Dr. Viviano.
WOPN is a potentially deadly condition that occurs in about 15% of patients with severe pancreatitis. Often, the dead tissue must be removed.
The EndoRotor System is made up of a power console, foot control, specimen trap, and single-use catheter.
The device is used to perform endoscopic necrosectomy. In this procedure, a stent is used to create a portal between the stomach and the necrotic cavity in the pancreas to accommodate a standard endoscope through which the EndoRotor cuts and removes necrotized tissue.
The FDA approved the EndoRotor System on the basis of a clinical trial involving 30 patients with WOPN who underwent a total of 63 direct endoscopic necrosectomies with the EndoRotor System (average, 2.1 procedures per patient).
The effectiveness of the EndoRotor System was determined by how well it cleared pancreatic necrotic tissue measured during CT with contrast before and after the procedure, endoscopy, or MRI 14 to 28 days after the last procedure.
Results showed an average 85% reduction in the amount of necrotic tissue, with half of the patients having 98.5% clearance of necrotic tissue, the FDA said.
Three patients suffered procedure-related serious adverse events (10% complication rate). Two patients experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. One patient had a pneumoperitoneum and later died after suffering from sepsis and multiorgan system failure caused by massive collections of infected pancreatic necrotic tissue.
Other serious adverse events, which were thought to be due to the patient’s underlying condition and not related to the device or procedure, included hematemesis, deep vein thrombosis, and pancreatitis.
The EndoRotor System should not be used for patients with known or suspected pancreatic cancer, and the device will carry a boxed warning stating this.
The FDA said it knows of one patient who died from pancreatic cancer 3 months after having necrotic pancreatic tissue removed with the EndoRotor System.
“This patient did not have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer prior to treatment, although the patient’s outcome is believed to be unrelated to the device or procedure,” the FDA said.
The EndoRotor System should be used only after patients have undergone other procedures to drain the WOPN.
It is also not appropriate for patients with walled-off necrosis who have a documented pseudoaneurysm greater than 1 cm within the cavity or with intervening gastric varices or unavoidable blood vessels within the access tract.
The EndoRotor System was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the EndoRotor System (Interscope, Inc.) for removal of necrotic tissue in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN).
“This device has shown its potential to provide a minimally invasive way to remove harmful necrotic pancreatic tissue in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis,” Charles Viviano, MD, PhD, acting director, Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, Urological, General Hospital Device and Human Factors Office, FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.
“Currently, in order to remove dead tissue from a patient’s necrotic pancreatic cavity, health care providers need to perform an invasive surgery or use other endoscopic tools not specifically indicated to treat this condition. With [this] marketing authorization, patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis now have a new treatment option,” said Dr. Viviano.
WOPN is a potentially deadly condition that occurs in about 15% of patients with severe pancreatitis. Often, the dead tissue must be removed.
The EndoRotor System is made up of a power console, foot control, specimen trap, and single-use catheter.
The device is used to perform endoscopic necrosectomy. In this procedure, a stent is used to create a portal between the stomach and the necrotic cavity in the pancreas to accommodate a standard endoscope through which the EndoRotor cuts and removes necrotized tissue.
The FDA approved the EndoRotor System on the basis of a clinical trial involving 30 patients with WOPN who underwent a total of 63 direct endoscopic necrosectomies with the EndoRotor System (average, 2.1 procedures per patient).
The effectiveness of the EndoRotor System was determined by how well it cleared pancreatic necrotic tissue measured during CT with contrast before and after the procedure, endoscopy, or MRI 14 to 28 days after the last procedure.
Results showed an average 85% reduction in the amount of necrotic tissue, with half of the patients having 98.5% clearance of necrotic tissue, the FDA said.
Three patients suffered procedure-related serious adverse events (10% complication rate). Two patients experienced gastrointestinal bleeding. One patient had a pneumoperitoneum and later died after suffering from sepsis and multiorgan system failure caused by massive collections of infected pancreatic necrotic tissue.
Other serious adverse events, which were thought to be due to the patient’s underlying condition and not related to the device or procedure, included hematemesis, deep vein thrombosis, and pancreatitis.
The EndoRotor System should not be used for patients with known or suspected pancreatic cancer, and the device will carry a boxed warning stating this.
The FDA said it knows of one patient who died from pancreatic cancer 3 months after having necrotic pancreatic tissue removed with the EndoRotor System.
“This patient did not have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer prior to treatment, although the patient’s outcome is believed to be unrelated to the device or procedure,” the FDA said.
The EndoRotor System should be used only after patients have undergone other procedures to drain the WOPN.
It is also not appropriate for patients with walled-off necrosis who have a documented pseudoaneurysm greater than 1 cm within the cavity or with intervening gastric varices or unavoidable blood vessels within the access tract.
The EndoRotor System was approved under the de novo premarket review pathway for new low- to moderate-risk devices.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections
Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are common after acute pancreatitis but almost always resolve spontaneously. Persistent collections that cause symptoms, become infected, and/or compress vital structures require treatment. Open surgery had traditionally been considered the standard method for this indication;1 Given its inherently less invasive nature, endoscopic transmural drainage (ETMD) has become a mainstay of this step-up philosophy – it is now the dominant strategy for pseudocyst drainage and, on the basis of emerging randomized trial data, compares very favorably with surgery for the treatment of walled-off necrosis (WON).
According to the step-up approach, the initial treatment of symptomatic and/or infected collections that are within 4 weeks of an attack of pancreatitis involves conservative management because the wall of the collection is typically immature; the systemic inflammation may be significantly exacerbated by definitive drainage, particularly surgery. In this early phase, failure of conservative management is addressed by percutaneous catheter placement, stepping up to a minimally invasive operation if the response to percutaneous drainage and antibiotics is insufficient.
Collections that are at least 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis are considered mature and termed pseudocysts or WONs depending on whether they contain pure fluid or necrotic tissue. In this phase, endoscopic treatment plays a primary management role because these collections are generally adherent to the stomach or duodenal wall and their capsule is organized enough to withstand endoscopic intervention. If treatment can be held off until this phase, then percutaneous and surgical drainage can often be avoided.
In practice, the 4-week rule holds true for most, but not all, PFCs. ETMD can be performed in some particularly mature collections prior to 4 weeks if the indication is strong and the collection appears to have a mature wall. However, the potential for cyst wall perforation is higher and should be considered in the risk-benefit discussion. Conversely, some collections beyond 4 weeks lack an adequately organized wall and require additional time for maturation.
While endoscopic drainage of pseudocysts has essentially supplanted surgery, the management of WON is more complex and remains multidisciplinary. Two recent randomized trials demonstrated no difference in major complications and/or death between a surgical and endoscopic step-up strategy for WON.2,3 Rates of pancreatic fistulae, hospital stay, and overall treatment costs, however, favored endoscopy. Nevertheless, defining the ideal strategy for many of these patients with complexity requires multidisciplinary discussion. Surgery continues to play a primary role in several scenarios, including collections that are not close to the upper GI tract, those that are particularly complex and extend caudally, and situations in which the endoscopic progress is too slow.
The three most important questions when deciding to embark on ETMD are: (1) whether drainage is indicated (that is, is the patient symptomatic or is there evidence that the PFC is infected?), (2) whether the wall of the collection is adequately mature and apposed to the GI tract wall; and (3) whether the collection contains necrosis? This last question has critical implications in the technical approach to drainage. While CT scan with IV contrast is accurate for assessing wall maturity, it is inadequate to evaluate the presence or quantity of necrosum. Transabdominal ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound, and MRI (on a T2 sequence) are all superior for this purpose. MRI has the additional benefit of assessing the pancreatic duct integrity, which may influence subsequent management.
Pseudocysts can be managed by cyst-gastrostomy or cyst-duodenostomy alone, whereas most WONs require the additional step of endoscopic necrosectomy – the process of entering the cyst cavity to mechanically debride necrotic tissue. Because of a higher rate of technical success, endoscopic ultrasound–directed creation of the transmural drainage pathway has become standard practice. In addition, it is likely safer, allowing for the identification and avoidance of interceding vessels and other vital structures. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic stent placement as primary therapy for PFCs is limited to the drainage of small collections (<5 cm), for which it is the preferred treatment strategy. It is as effective as ETMD, which may not be feasible or safe for small PFCs.
Plastic double-pigtail stents have traditionally been used to maintain the transmural tract for both pseudocyst and WON. Recently, however, metallic stents have become more popular. Fully covered biliary self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are easier to place, have a larger lumen, and are associated with improved outcomes, compared with plastic stents in observational studies of pseudocyst drainage. Lumen-apposing metallic stents (LAMS) have become the preferred prosthesis for WON drainage given the ability to near-simultaneously establish access and deploy the stent, as well as their much larger caliber lumen which permits seamless entry into the cavity with an endoscope. Based on ease and efficiency of use, LAMS are also commonly employed for pseudocyst drainage, although entry into the cavity is unnecessary.
Plastic stents have been shown to be more cost effective than LAMS for pseudocyst drainage, although the economics around biliary SEMS in this context have not been explored. Robust comparative effectiveness data defining the optimal prostheses for pseudocysts are needed. The literature comparing LAMS to plastic stents for the management of WON is mixed. Studies have shown LAMS to be more cost effective, but a small randomized trial demonstrated no difference in clinical success or in the number of procedures to achieve WON resolution.4 We generally favor LAMS for WON since large-caliber balloon dilation of the tract seems safer within the lumen of the LAMS (which could seal small perforations and tamponade bleeding vessels) than within a freshly created tract.
Secondary infection of the cavity, usually because of stent occlusion, and bleeding are the most common complications of ETMD. Even in the absence of stent occlusion, contamination of the collection after ETMD is ubiquitous and, as such, we prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for 1-2 weeks after the procedure, although this practice is not evidence based. Hemorrhage appears to be increasing in frequency with the diffusion of LAMS; this has been postulated to be due to particularly rapid cyst cavity collapse resulting in erosion of the stent into contralateral cyst wall vessels. CT angiography followed by an embolization procedure for a possible pseudoaneurysm is the mainstay of treatment. Serious venous bleeding is more challenging to address because angiographic options are limited.
Despite tremendous recent advances, several important controversies in the endoscopic management of PFCs persist. The optimal prosthesis, the importance of first-session endoscopic necroscopy (compared with stepping up to endoscopic necroscopy only if necessary), the roles of adjunctive drain placement and chemical debridement (such as hydrogen peroxide), the need for concomitant pancreatic stent placement, and the preferred long-term management of a disconnected pancreatic duct are areas for which additional research is sorely needed. We further discuss these questions and many additional technical considerations pertaining to endoscopic drainage in a recent review.5
In summary, endoscopic transmural drainage of mature PFCs is effective and safe. Existing evidence supports its use as the favored treatment modality in appropriate candidates and has rendered it a mainstay of the therapeutic armamentarium for this disease. Further studies are needed to address critical unanswered questions and to develop a uniform endoscopic management paradigm.
References
1. van Santvoort HC et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(16):1491-502.
2. van Brunschot S et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10115):51-8.
3. Bang JY et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):1027-40.
4. Bang JY et al. Gut. 2019;68(7):1200-9.
5. Elmunzer BJ. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(12):1851-63.
Dr. Moran is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Dr. Elmunzer is the Peter Cotton Professor of Medicine and Endoscopic Innovation, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina. The authors have no conflicts of interest pertaining to this review.
Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are common after acute pancreatitis but almost always resolve spontaneously. Persistent collections that cause symptoms, become infected, and/or compress vital structures require treatment. Open surgery had traditionally been considered the standard method for this indication;1 Given its inherently less invasive nature, endoscopic transmural drainage (ETMD) has become a mainstay of this step-up philosophy – it is now the dominant strategy for pseudocyst drainage and, on the basis of emerging randomized trial data, compares very favorably with surgery for the treatment of walled-off necrosis (WON).
According to the step-up approach, the initial treatment of symptomatic and/or infected collections that are within 4 weeks of an attack of pancreatitis involves conservative management because the wall of the collection is typically immature; the systemic inflammation may be significantly exacerbated by definitive drainage, particularly surgery. In this early phase, failure of conservative management is addressed by percutaneous catheter placement, stepping up to a minimally invasive operation if the response to percutaneous drainage and antibiotics is insufficient.
Collections that are at least 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis are considered mature and termed pseudocysts or WONs depending on whether they contain pure fluid or necrotic tissue. In this phase, endoscopic treatment plays a primary management role because these collections are generally adherent to the stomach or duodenal wall and their capsule is organized enough to withstand endoscopic intervention. If treatment can be held off until this phase, then percutaneous and surgical drainage can often be avoided.
In practice, the 4-week rule holds true for most, but not all, PFCs. ETMD can be performed in some particularly mature collections prior to 4 weeks if the indication is strong and the collection appears to have a mature wall. However, the potential for cyst wall perforation is higher and should be considered in the risk-benefit discussion. Conversely, some collections beyond 4 weeks lack an adequately organized wall and require additional time for maturation.
While endoscopic drainage of pseudocysts has essentially supplanted surgery, the management of WON is more complex and remains multidisciplinary. Two recent randomized trials demonstrated no difference in major complications and/or death between a surgical and endoscopic step-up strategy for WON.2,3 Rates of pancreatic fistulae, hospital stay, and overall treatment costs, however, favored endoscopy. Nevertheless, defining the ideal strategy for many of these patients with complexity requires multidisciplinary discussion. Surgery continues to play a primary role in several scenarios, including collections that are not close to the upper GI tract, those that are particularly complex and extend caudally, and situations in which the endoscopic progress is too slow.
The three most important questions when deciding to embark on ETMD are: (1) whether drainage is indicated (that is, is the patient symptomatic or is there evidence that the PFC is infected?), (2) whether the wall of the collection is adequately mature and apposed to the GI tract wall; and (3) whether the collection contains necrosis? This last question has critical implications in the technical approach to drainage. While CT scan with IV contrast is accurate for assessing wall maturity, it is inadequate to evaluate the presence or quantity of necrosum. Transabdominal ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound, and MRI (on a T2 sequence) are all superior for this purpose. MRI has the additional benefit of assessing the pancreatic duct integrity, which may influence subsequent management.
Pseudocysts can be managed by cyst-gastrostomy or cyst-duodenostomy alone, whereas most WONs require the additional step of endoscopic necrosectomy – the process of entering the cyst cavity to mechanically debride necrotic tissue. Because of a higher rate of technical success, endoscopic ultrasound–directed creation of the transmural drainage pathway has become standard practice. In addition, it is likely safer, allowing for the identification and avoidance of interceding vessels and other vital structures. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic stent placement as primary therapy for PFCs is limited to the drainage of small collections (<5 cm), for which it is the preferred treatment strategy. It is as effective as ETMD, which may not be feasible or safe for small PFCs.
Plastic double-pigtail stents have traditionally been used to maintain the transmural tract for both pseudocyst and WON. Recently, however, metallic stents have become more popular. Fully covered biliary self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are easier to place, have a larger lumen, and are associated with improved outcomes, compared with plastic stents in observational studies of pseudocyst drainage. Lumen-apposing metallic stents (LAMS) have become the preferred prosthesis for WON drainage given the ability to near-simultaneously establish access and deploy the stent, as well as their much larger caliber lumen which permits seamless entry into the cavity with an endoscope. Based on ease and efficiency of use, LAMS are also commonly employed for pseudocyst drainage, although entry into the cavity is unnecessary.
Plastic stents have been shown to be more cost effective than LAMS for pseudocyst drainage, although the economics around biliary SEMS in this context have not been explored. Robust comparative effectiveness data defining the optimal prostheses for pseudocysts are needed. The literature comparing LAMS to plastic stents for the management of WON is mixed. Studies have shown LAMS to be more cost effective, but a small randomized trial demonstrated no difference in clinical success or in the number of procedures to achieve WON resolution.4 We generally favor LAMS for WON since large-caliber balloon dilation of the tract seems safer within the lumen of the LAMS (which could seal small perforations and tamponade bleeding vessels) than within a freshly created tract.
Secondary infection of the cavity, usually because of stent occlusion, and bleeding are the most common complications of ETMD. Even in the absence of stent occlusion, contamination of the collection after ETMD is ubiquitous and, as such, we prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for 1-2 weeks after the procedure, although this practice is not evidence based. Hemorrhage appears to be increasing in frequency with the diffusion of LAMS; this has been postulated to be due to particularly rapid cyst cavity collapse resulting in erosion of the stent into contralateral cyst wall vessels. CT angiography followed by an embolization procedure for a possible pseudoaneurysm is the mainstay of treatment. Serious venous bleeding is more challenging to address because angiographic options are limited.
Despite tremendous recent advances, several important controversies in the endoscopic management of PFCs persist. The optimal prosthesis, the importance of first-session endoscopic necroscopy (compared with stepping up to endoscopic necroscopy only if necessary), the roles of adjunctive drain placement and chemical debridement (such as hydrogen peroxide), the need for concomitant pancreatic stent placement, and the preferred long-term management of a disconnected pancreatic duct are areas for which additional research is sorely needed. We further discuss these questions and many additional technical considerations pertaining to endoscopic drainage in a recent review.5
In summary, endoscopic transmural drainage of mature PFCs is effective and safe. Existing evidence supports its use as the favored treatment modality in appropriate candidates and has rendered it a mainstay of the therapeutic armamentarium for this disease. Further studies are needed to address critical unanswered questions and to develop a uniform endoscopic management paradigm.
References
1. van Santvoort HC et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(16):1491-502.
2. van Brunschot S et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10115):51-8.
3. Bang JY et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):1027-40.
4. Bang JY et al. Gut. 2019;68(7):1200-9.
5. Elmunzer BJ. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(12):1851-63.
Dr. Moran is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Dr. Elmunzer is the Peter Cotton Professor of Medicine and Endoscopic Innovation, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina. The authors have no conflicts of interest pertaining to this review.
Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are common after acute pancreatitis but almost always resolve spontaneously. Persistent collections that cause symptoms, become infected, and/or compress vital structures require treatment. Open surgery had traditionally been considered the standard method for this indication;1 Given its inherently less invasive nature, endoscopic transmural drainage (ETMD) has become a mainstay of this step-up philosophy – it is now the dominant strategy for pseudocyst drainage and, on the basis of emerging randomized trial data, compares very favorably with surgery for the treatment of walled-off necrosis (WON).
According to the step-up approach, the initial treatment of symptomatic and/or infected collections that are within 4 weeks of an attack of pancreatitis involves conservative management because the wall of the collection is typically immature; the systemic inflammation may be significantly exacerbated by definitive drainage, particularly surgery. In this early phase, failure of conservative management is addressed by percutaneous catheter placement, stepping up to a minimally invasive operation if the response to percutaneous drainage and antibiotics is insufficient.
Collections that are at least 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis are considered mature and termed pseudocysts or WONs depending on whether they contain pure fluid or necrotic tissue. In this phase, endoscopic treatment plays a primary management role because these collections are generally adherent to the stomach or duodenal wall and their capsule is organized enough to withstand endoscopic intervention. If treatment can be held off until this phase, then percutaneous and surgical drainage can often be avoided.
In practice, the 4-week rule holds true for most, but not all, PFCs. ETMD can be performed in some particularly mature collections prior to 4 weeks if the indication is strong and the collection appears to have a mature wall. However, the potential for cyst wall perforation is higher and should be considered in the risk-benefit discussion. Conversely, some collections beyond 4 weeks lack an adequately organized wall and require additional time for maturation.
While endoscopic drainage of pseudocysts has essentially supplanted surgery, the management of WON is more complex and remains multidisciplinary. Two recent randomized trials demonstrated no difference in major complications and/or death between a surgical and endoscopic step-up strategy for WON.2,3 Rates of pancreatic fistulae, hospital stay, and overall treatment costs, however, favored endoscopy. Nevertheless, defining the ideal strategy for many of these patients with complexity requires multidisciplinary discussion. Surgery continues to play a primary role in several scenarios, including collections that are not close to the upper GI tract, those that are particularly complex and extend caudally, and situations in which the endoscopic progress is too slow.
The three most important questions when deciding to embark on ETMD are: (1) whether drainage is indicated (that is, is the patient symptomatic or is there evidence that the PFC is infected?), (2) whether the wall of the collection is adequately mature and apposed to the GI tract wall; and (3) whether the collection contains necrosis? This last question has critical implications in the technical approach to drainage. While CT scan with IV contrast is accurate for assessing wall maturity, it is inadequate to evaluate the presence or quantity of necrosum. Transabdominal ultrasound, endoscopic ultrasound, and MRI (on a T2 sequence) are all superior for this purpose. MRI has the additional benefit of assessing the pancreatic duct integrity, which may influence subsequent management.
Pseudocysts can be managed by cyst-gastrostomy or cyst-duodenostomy alone, whereas most WONs require the additional step of endoscopic necrosectomy – the process of entering the cyst cavity to mechanically debride necrotic tissue. Because of a higher rate of technical success, endoscopic ultrasound–directed creation of the transmural drainage pathway has become standard practice. In addition, it is likely safer, allowing for the identification and avoidance of interceding vessels and other vital structures. The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic stent placement as primary therapy for PFCs is limited to the drainage of small collections (<5 cm), for which it is the preferred treatment strategy. It is as effective as ETMD, which may not be feasible or safe for small PFCs.
Plastic double-pigtail stents have traditionally been used to maintain the transmural tract for both pseudocyst and WON. Recently, however, metallic stents have become more popular. Fully covered biliary self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are easier to place, have a larger lumen, and are associated with improved outcomes, compared with plastic stents in observational studies of pseudocyst drainage. Lumen-apposing metallic stents (LAMS) have become the preferred prosthesis for WON drainage given the ability to near-simultaneously establish access and deploy the stent, as well as their much larger caliber lumen which permits seamless entry into the cavity with an endoscope. Based on ease and efficiency of use, LAMS are also commonly employed for pseudocyst drainage, although entry into the cavity is unnecessary.
Plastic stents have been shown to be more cost effective than LAMS for pseudocyst drainage, although the economics around biliary SEMS in this context have not been explored. Robust comparative effectiveness data defining the optimal prostheses for pseudocysts are needed. The literature comparing LAMS to plastic stents for the management of WON is mixed. Studies have shown LAMS to be more cost effective, but a small randomized trial demonstrated no difference in clinical success or in the number of procedures to achieve WON resolution.4 We generally favor LAMS for WON since large-caliber balloon dilation of the tract seems safer within the lumen of the LAMS (which could seal small perforations and tamponade bleeding vessels) than within a freshly created tract.
Secondary infection of the cavity, usually because of stent occlusion, and bleeding are the most common complications of ETMD. Even in the absence of stent occlusion, contamination of the collection after ETMD is ubiquitous and, as such, we prescribe prophylactic antibiotics for 1-2 weeks after the procedure, although this practice is not evidence based. Hemorrhage appears to be increasing in frequency with the diffusion of LAMS; this has been postulated to be due to particularly rapid cyst cavity collapse resulting in erosion of the stent into contralateral cyst wall vessels. CT angiography followed by an embolization procedure for a possible pseudoaneurysm is the mainstay of treatment. Serious venous bleeding is more challenging to address because angiographic options are limited.
Despite tremendous recent advances, several important controversies in the endoscopic management of PFCs persist. The optimal prosthesis, the importance of first-session endoscopic necroscopy (compared with stepping up to endoscopic necroscopy only if necessary), the roles of adjunctive drain placement and chemical debridement (such as hydrogen peroxide), the need for concomitant pancreatic stent placement, and the preferred long-term management of a disconnected pancreatic duct are areas for which additional research is sorely needed. We further discuss these questions and many additional technical considerations pertaining to endoscopic drainage in a recent review.5
In summary, endoscopic transmural drainage of mature PFCs is effective and safe. Existing evidence supports its use as the favored treatment modality in appropriate candidates and has rendered it a mainstay of the therapeutic armamentarium for this disease. Further studies are needed to address critical unanswered questions and to develop a uniform endoscopic management paradigm.
References
1. van Santvoort HC et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(16):1491-502.
2. van Brunschot S et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10115):51-8.
3. Bang JY et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(4):1027-40.
4. Bang JY et al. Gut. 2019;68(7):1200-9.
5. Elmunzer BJ. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(12):1851-63.
Dr. Moran is assistant professor of medicine, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Dr. Elmunzer is the Peter Cotton Professor of Medicine and Endoscopic Innovation, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina. The authors have no conflicts of interest pertaining to this review.
Identifying pancreatitis etiology may help prevent progression
Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.
The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.
Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.
There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.
Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.
Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.
For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.
In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.
Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.
Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Share AGA GI Patient Center education on pancreatitis to help your patients understand testing and treatment options and possible complications at http://ow.ly/nsdn30rcz5A.
Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.
The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.
Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.
There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.
Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.
Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.
For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.
In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.
Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.
Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Share AGA GI Patient Center education on pancreatitis to help your patients understand testing and treatment options and possible complications at http://ow.ly/nsdn30rcz5A.
Pancreatitis remains the third most common gastroenterological cause of hospital admission, and staying on top of the latest quality indicators is important for the care and safety of patients, said Jamie S. Barkin, MD, professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Miami, in a virtual presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases: New Advances conference jointly provided by Rutgers and Global Academy for Medical Education.
The basics of treatment have changed, said Dr. Barkin. “A large volume of ringers lactate intravenous fluids given within the first 24 hours of admission, as opposed to normal saline, may decrease the inflammatory response in patients with acute pancreatitis.” The preferred diagnostic method remains clinical evaluation along with use of serum lipase, which is more sensitive than serum amylase (97%) but with similar specificity (99%), and current wisdom does not support the need for an early CT for diagnosis unless there is a diagnostic dilemma.
Early establishment of disease etiology and its therapy is imperative to attempt to prevent recurrent episodes and progression to chronic pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin said. Genetic testing studies suggest that approximately 10% of acute pancreatitis cases are the result of genetic factors, and Dr. Barkin recommended performing genetic testing after a first attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in younger patients.
There is an extensive list of medications that may cause acute pancreatitis, according to a recent study published in PLOS One, the most common of which include acetaminophen, amiodarone, azathioprine, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, acute pancreatitis can be caused by isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH), cannabis, L-asparaginase, metronidazole, mesalamine, simvastatin, sulindac, sitagliptin, thiazides, tigecycline, trans-retinoic acid, and valproic acid, among others.
Current recommendations for hospital treatment of acute pancreatitis include early large volume fluid replacement and initiation of per-oral nutrition as soon as able to be tolerated, as well as pain control, Dr. Barkin said. In addition, management includes strict glycemic and triglyceride control and performance of cholecystectomy for mild and or moderate biliary pancreatitis or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the patient is not an operative candidate during the same hospital stay.
Current recommendations for the prevention of acute pancreatitis include avoidance of irritants such as alcohol, nicotine, and drugs known to cause acute pancreatitis, including marijuana, said Dr. Barkin. In addition, controlling metabolic factors such as obesity, diabetes, and triglycerides can help reduce risk of recurrent episodes in susceptible patients. Several of these factors are also linked to increased risk for progression of acute pancreatitis to chronic pancreatitis.
For patients with biliary pancreatitis, Dr. Barkin noted that cholecystectomy should be performed prior to discharge during the index hospitalization. “In patients who cannot undergo surgery, endoscopic sphincterotomy should be performed to allow spontaneous passage of any stones still in the gallbladder,” he noted.
In addition, patients who have experienced an attack of acute pancreatitis should be screened long-term for development of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, which may be present in approximately one-quarter of patients following an acute pancreatitis episode, and diabetes, Dr. Barkin said. He cited a population-based study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology in 2019 in which individuals with postpancreatitis diabetes had significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality, as well as hospitalization for conditions including chronic pulmonary disease, severe renal disease, and infectious disease.
Finally, at the time of discharge, it is essential to evaluate acute pancreatitis patients for risk of readmission, Dr. Barkin said. In addition to severe disease and systemic inflammatory response syndrome at the time of patient discharge, several factors increase the likelihood of readmission including ongoing abdominal pain requiring use of pain medicine, obesity, and inability to tolerate solid food, he noted.
Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Dr. Barkin had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Share AGA GI Patient Center education on pancreatitis to help your patients understand testing and treatment options and possible complications at http://ow.ly/nsdn30rcz5A.
FROM DIGESTIVE DISEASES: NEW ADVANCES
Mounting data support COVID-19 acute pancreatitis
Mounting data support acute pancreatitis as one possible GI manifestation of COVID-19, according to investigators.
While previous case reports suggested that infection with SARS-CoV2 may lead to pancreatitis, this retrospective analysis, which is the largest to date, is the first to offer substantial evidence for this claim, reported lead author Sumant Inamdar, MBBS, of the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, and colleagues.
“It has become increasingly clear that COVID-19 has systemic effects that also includes the gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary systems,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “As islet cells of the pancreas contain ACE2 receptor proteins, SARS-CoV2 can bind to these receptors and cause pancreatic injury.”
For the present analysis, Dr. Inamdar and colleagues reviewed charts from 48,012 patients who were hospitalized in New York between March and June of this year. While pancreatitis is usually diagnosed based on two out of three criteria, disease classification in the study required all three: characteristic upper abdominal pain upon admission, lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and evidence of pancreatitis on cross-sectional imaging.
“[B]y including all three criteria for pancreatitis in our definition, we may be underestimating the rate of pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote. “However, we felt including diagnostic lipase levels and imaging was important for the accuracy of the diagnosis.”
Primary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, length of stay, development of pancreatic necrosis, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without COVID-19.
Out of 48,012 hospitalized patients, 11,883 (24.75%) tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Across the entire population, 189 patients had pancreatitis (0.39%), and of these, 32 (17%) also had COVID-19. This translates to a point prevalence for pancreatitis of 0.27% for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Among patients with pancreatitis who did not have COVID-19, the most common etiologies for pancreatitis were gallstones (34%) and alcohol (37%), compared with just 16% and 6% of SARS-CoV2-positive cases of pancreatitis, respectively. Idiopathic pancreatitis was significantly more common among patients with COVID-19 than those without (69% vs 21%; P less than .0001).
Black or Hispanic patients with pancreatitis were 4-5 times more likely to have COVID-19 than patients with pancreatitis who were white. Across all races/ethnicities, patients with pancreatitis and COVID-19 more often required mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 5.65) and longer hospital stays (OR, 3.22), compared with those who had pancreatitis alone. While rates of mortality and pancreatic necrosis showed similar trends, associations with COVID-19 were not statistically significant.
“These findings support the notion that pancreatitis should be included in the list of GI manifestations of COVID-19,” the investigators wrote.
When caring for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Inamdar and colleagues recommended that clinicians pay close attention to any history of abdominal pain, and consider testing serum lipase levels.
“Further large studies are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.
Avinash Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that more work is needed; in the meantime, he suggested that evidence is now strong enough for clinicians to take notice.
“Overall, this study adds further weight to COVID-19 acute pancreatitis,” he said. “Larger studies, and convincing pathophysiologic data, will be needed to confirm COVID-19 as a cause of acute pancreatitis. However, there appears to be enough circumstantial evidence to consider a COVID-19 diagnosis in patients presenting with acute pancreatitis.”
He noted that the new clinical evidence also stands on a solid theoretical foundation.
“Viruses, especially mumps and coxsackie, have long been known to cause acute pancreatitis,” he said. “Additionally, the ACE2 receptor is present on pancreatic beta-cells and may mediate COVID-19 induced pancreatitis.”
Along with larger observational studies, Dr. Ketwaroo suggested that a number of interventional questions remain unanswered.
“While most acute pancreatitis is treated with supportive care, could proven therapies for COVID-19, such as steroids, also mitigate COVID-19 acute pancreatitis?” he asked. “Is COVID-19 a cofactor for acute pancreatitis caused by alcohol or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? We await further information from an active area of research.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Olympus, Fujifilm, and others.
SOURCE: Inamdar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.044.
Share AGA GI Patient Center content to help your patients understand the symptoms and complications of pancreatitis at http://ow.ly/j1AN30r8ZDa.
This story was updated on 9/14/2020.
Mounting data support acute pancreatitis as one possible GI manifestation of COVID-19, according to investigators.
While previous case reports suggested that infection with SARS-CoV2 may lead to pancreatitis, this retrospective analysis, which is the largest to date, is the first to offer substantial evidence for this claim, reported lead author Sumant Inamdar, MBBS, of the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, and colleagues.
“It has become increasingly clear that COVID-19 has systemic effects that also includes the gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary systems,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “As islet cells of the pancreas contain ACE2 receptor proteins, SARS-CoV2 can bind to these receptors and cause pancreatic injury.”
For the present analysis, Dr. Inamdar and colleagues reviewed charts from 48,012 patients who were hospitalized in New York between March and June of this year. While pancreatitis is usually diagnosed based on two out of three criteria, disease classification in the study required all three: characteristic upper abdominal pain upon admission, lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and evidence of pancreatitis on cross-sectional imaging.
“[B]y including all three criteria for pancreatitis in our definition, we may be underestimating the rate of pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote. “However, we felt including diagnostic lipase levels and imaging was important for the accuracy of the diagnosis.”
Primary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, length of stay, development of pancreatic necrosis, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without COVID-19.
Out of 48,012 hospitalized patients, 11,883 (24.75%) tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Across the entire population, 189 patients had pancreatitis (0.39%), and of these, 32 (17%) also had COVID-19. This translates to a point prevalence for pancreatitis of 0.27% for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Among patients with pancreatitis who did not have COVID-19, the most common etiologies for pancreatitis were gallstones (34%) and alcohol (37%), compared with just 16% and 6% of SARS-CoV2-positive cases of pancreatitis, respectively. Idiopathic pancreatitis was significantly more common among patients with COVID-19 than those without (69% vs 21%; P less than .0001).
Black or Hispanic patients with pancreatitis were 4-5 times more likely to have COVID-19 than patients with pancreatitis who were white. Across all races/ethnicities, patients with pancreatitis and COVID-19 more often required mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 5.65) and longer hospital stays (OR, 3.22), compared with those who had pancreatitis alone. While rates of mortality and pancreatic necrosis showed similar trends, associations with COVID-19 were not statistically significant.
“These findings support the notion that pancreatitis should be included in the list of GI manifestations of COVID-19,” the investigators wrote.
When caring for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Inamdar and colleagues recommended that clinicians pay close attention to any history of abdominal pain, and consider testing serum lipase levels.
“Further large studies are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.
Avinash Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that more work is needed; in the meantime, he suggested that evidence is now strong enough for clinicians to take notice.
“Overall, this study adds further weight to COVID-19 acute pancreatitis,” he said. “Larger studies, and convincing pathophysiologic data, will be needed to confirm COVID-19 as a cause of acute pancreatitis. However, there appears to be enough circumstantial evidence to consider a COVID-19 diagnosis in patients presenting with acute pancreatitis.”
He noted that the new clinical evidence also stands on a solid theoretical foundation.
“Viruses, especially mumps and coxsackie, have long been known to cause acute pancreatitis,” he said. “Additionally, the ACE2 receptor is present on pancreatic beta-cells and may mediate COVID-19 induced pancreatitis.”
Along with larger observational studies, Dr. Ketwaroo suggested that a number of interventional questions remain unanswered.
“While most acute pancreatitis is treated with supportive care, could proven therapies for COVID-19, such as steroids, also mitigate COVID-19 acute pancreatitis?” he asked. “Is COVID-19 a cofactor for acute pancreatitis caused by alcohol or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? We await further information from an active area of research.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Olympus, Fujifilm, and others.
SOURCE: Inamdar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.044.
Share AGA GI Patient Center content to help your patients understand the symptoms and complications of pancreatitis at http://ow.ly/j1AN30r8ZDa.
This story was updated on 9/14/2020.
Mounting data support acute pancreatitis as one possible GI manifestation of COVID-19, according to investigators.
While previous case reports suggested that infection with SARS-CoV2 may lead to pancreatitis, this retrospective analysis, which is the largest to date, is the first to offer substantial evidence for this claim, reported lead author Sumant Inamdar, MBBS, of the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, and colleagues.
“It has become increasingly clear that COVID-19 has systemic effects that also includes the gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary systems,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “As islet cells of the pancreas contain ACE2 receptor proteins, SARS-CoV2 can bind to these receptors and cause pancreatic injury.”
For the present analysis, Dr. Inamdar and colleagues reviewed charts from 48,012 patients who were hospitalized in New York between March and June of this year. While pancreatitis is usually diagnosed based on two out of three criteria, disease classification in the study required all three: characteristic upper abdominal pain upon admission, lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and evidence of pancreatitis on cross-sectional imaging.
“[B]y including all three criteria for pancreatitis in our definition, we may be underestimating the rate of pancreatitis,” the investigators wrote. “However, we felt including diagnostic lipase levels and imaging was important for the accuracy of the diagnosis.”
Primary outcomes included mechanical ventilation, length of stay, development of pancreatic necrosis, and mortality. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without COVID-19.
Out of 48,012 hospitalized patients, 11,883 (24.75%) tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Across the entire population, 189 patients had pancreatitis (0.39%), and of these, 32 (17%) also had COVID-19. This translates to a point prevalence for pancreatitis of 0.27% for patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
Among patients with pancreatitis who did not have COVID-19, the most common etiologies for pancreatitis were gallstones (34%) and alcohol (37%), compared with just 16% and 6% of SARS-CoV2-positive cases of pancreatitis, respectively. Idiopathic pancreatitis was significantly more common among patients with COVID-19 than those without (69% vs 21%; P less than .0001).
Black or Hispanic patients with pancreatitis were 4-5 times more likely to have COVID-19 than patients with pancreatitis who were white. Across all races/ethnicities, patients with pancreatitis and COVID-19 more often required mechanical ventilation (odds ratio [OR], 5.65) and longer hospital stays (OR, 3.22), compared with those who had pancreatitis alone. While rates of mortality and pancreatic necrosis showed similar trends, associations with COVID-19 were not statistically significant.
“These findings support the notion that pancreatitis should be included in the list of GI manifestations of COVID-19,” the investigators wrote.
When caring for patients with COVID-19, Dr. Inamdar and colleagues recommended that clinicians pay close attention to any history of abdominal pain, and consider testing serum lipase levels.
“Further large studies are needed to confirm our findings,” they concluded.
Avinash Ketwaroo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that more work is needed; in the meantime, he suggested that evidence is now strong enough for clinicians to take notice.
“Overall, this study adds further weight to COVID-19 acute pancreatitis,” he said. “Larger studies, and convincing pathophysiologic data, will be needed to confirm COVID-19 as a cause of acute pancreatitis. However, there appears to be enough circumstantial evidence to consider a COVID-19 diagnosis in patients presenting with acute pancreatitis.”
He noted that the new clinical evidence also stands on a solid theoretical foundation.
“Viruses, especially mumps and coxsackie, have long been known to cause acute pancreatitis,” he said. “Additionally, the ACE2 receptor is present on pancreatic beta-cells and may mediate COVID-19 induced pancreatitis.”
Along with larger observational studies, Dr. Ketwaroo suggested that a number of interventional questions remain unanswered.
“While most acute pancreatitis is treated with supportive care, could proven therapies for COVID-19, such as steroids, also mitigate COVID-19 acute pancreatitis?” he asked. “Is COVID-19 a cofactor for acute pancreatitis caused by alcohol or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? We await further information from an active area of research.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Olympus, Fujifilm, and others.
SOURCE: Inamdar S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Aug 26. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.044.
Share AGA GI Patient Center content to help your patients understand the symptoms and complications of pancreatitis at http://ow.ly/j1AN30r8ZDa.
This story was updated on 9/14/2020.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Diabetes plus weight loss equals increased risk of pancreatic cancer
A new study has linked recent-onset diabetes and subsequent weight loss to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, indicating a distinct group of individuals to screen early for this deadly disease.
“The likelihood of a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was even further elevated among individuals with older age, healthy weight before weight loss, and unintentional weight loss,” wrote Chen Yuan, ScD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. The study was published in JAMA Oncology.
To determine whether an association exists between diabetes plus weight change and pancreatic cancer, the researchers analyzed decades of medical history data from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS). The study population from the NHS included 112,818 women with a mean age of 59 years; the population from the HPFS included 46,207 men with a mean age of 65 years. Since enrollment – the baseline was 1978 for the NHS and 1988 for the HPFS – participants have provided follow-up information via biennial questionnaires.
Recent diabetes onset, weight loss boost cancer risk
From those combined groups, 1,116 incident cases of pancreatic cancer (0.7%) were identified. Compared with patients with no diabetes, patients with recent-onset diabetes had triple the risk of pancreatic cancer (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-3.82) and patients with longstanding diabetes had more than double the risk (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.78-2.60). Patients with longer disease duration also had more than twice the risk of pancreatic cancer, with HRs of 2.25 for those with diabetes for 4-10 years (95% CI, 1.74-2.92) and 2.07 for more than 10 years (95% CI, 1.61-2.66).
Compared with patients who hadn’t lost any weight, patients who reported a 1- to 4-pound weight loss (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.52), a 5- to 8-pound weight loss (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66), and a more than 8-pound weight loss (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.58-2.32) had higher risks of pancreatic cancer. Patients with recent-onset diabetes and a 1- to 8-pound weight loss (91 incident cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 55-151) or a weight loss of more than 8 pounds (164 incident cases per 100,000 person years; 95% CI, 114-238) had a much higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, compared with patients with neither (16 incident cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 14-17).
After stratified analyses of patients with both recent-onset diabetes and weight loss, rates of pancreatic cancer were also notably high in those 70 years or older (234 cases per 100,000 person years), those with a body mass index of less than 25 kg/m2 before weight loss (400 cases per 100,000 person years), and those with a low likelihood of intentional weight loss (334 cases per 100,000 person years).
“I like the study because it reminds us of the importance of not thinking everyone that presents with type 2 diabetes necessarily has garden-variety diabetes,” Paul Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “I have always been concerned when a new-onset diabetic individual presents with no family history of diabetes or prediabetes, especially if they’re neither overweight nor obese. I have sometimes screened those individuals for pancreatic abnormalities.”
A call for screening
“This study highlights the consideration for further screening to those with weight loss at the time of diabetes diagnosis, which is very sensible given how unusual weight loss is as a presenting symptom at the time of diagnosis of typical type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Jellinger added. “The combination of weight loss and no family history of diabetes at the time of diagnosis should be an even stronger signal for pancreatic cancer screening and potential detection at a much earlier stage.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including some patients with pancreatic cancer not returning their questionnaires and the timing of the questionnaires meaning that patients could’ve developed diabetes after returning it. In addition, they recognized that the participants were “predominantly White health professionals” and recommended a study of “additional patient populations” in the future.
The authors noted numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from various initiatives, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies.
Review the “AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review” for best practice advice for clinicians screening and diagnosing pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. Learn more at http://ow.ly/vwTR30r4Zwu.
SOURCE: Yuan C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2948.
A new study has linked recent-onset diabetes and subsequent weight loss to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, indicating a distinct group of individuals to screen early for this deadly disease.
“The likelihood of a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was even further elevated among individuals with older age, healthy weight before weight loss, and unintentional weight loss,” wrote Chen Yuan, ScD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. The study was published in JAMA Oncology.
To determine whether an association exists between diabetes plus weight change and pancreatic cancer, the researchers analyzed decades of medical history data from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS). The study population from the NHS included 112,818 women with a mean age of 59 years; the population from the HPFS included 46,207 men with a mean age of 65 years. Since enrollment – the baseline was 1978 for the NHS and 1988 for the HPFS – participants have provided follow-up information via biennial questionnaires.
Recent diabetes onset, weight loss boost cancer risk
From those combined groups, 1,116 incident cases of pancreatic cancer (0.7%) were identified. Compared with patients with no diabetes, patients with recent-onset diabetes had triple the risk of pancreatic cancer (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-3.82) and patients with longstanding diabetes had more than double the risk (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.78-2.60). Patients with longer disease duration also had more than twice the risk of pancreatic cancer, with HRs of 2.25 for those with diabetes for 4-10 years (95% CI, 1.74-2.92) and 2.07 for more than 10 years (95% CI, 1.61-2.66).
Compared with patients who hadn’t lost any weight, patients who reported a 1- to 4-pound weight loss (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.52), a 5- to 8-pound weight loss (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66), and a more than 8-pound weight loss (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.58-2.32) had higher risks of pancreatic cancer. Patients with recent-onset diabetes and a 1- to 8-pound weight loss (91 incident cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 55-151) or a weight loss of more than 8 pounds (164 incident cases per 100,000 person years; 95% CI, 114-238) had a much higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, compared with patients with neither (16 incident cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 14-17).
After stratified analyses of patients with both recent-onset diabetes and weight loss, rates of pancreatic cancer were also notably high in those 70 years or older (234 cases per 100,000 person years), those with a body mass index of less than 25 kg/m2 before weight loss (400 cases per 100,000 person years), and those with a low likelihood of intentional weight loss (334 cases per 100,000 person years).
“I like the study because it reminds us of the importance of not thinking everyone that presents with type 2 diabetes necessarily has garden-variety diabetes,” Paul Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “I have always been concerned when a new-onset diabetic individual presents with no family history of diabetes or prediabetes, especially if they’re neither overweight nor obese. I have sometimes screened those individuals for pancreatic abnormalities.”
A call for screening
“This study highlights the consideration for further screening to those with weight loss at the time of diabetes diagnosis, which is very sensible given how unusual weight loss is as a presenting symptom at the time of diagnosis of typical type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Jellinger added. “The combination of weight loss and no family history of diabetes at the time of diagnosis should be an even stronger signal for pancreatic cancer screening and potential detection at a much earlier stage.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including some patients with pancreatic cancer not returning their questionnaires and the timing of the questionnaires meaning that patients could’ve developed diabetes after returning it. In addition, they recognized that the participants were “predominantly White health professionals” and recommended a study of “additional patient populations” in the future.
The authors noted numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from various initiatives, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies.
Review the “AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review” for best practice advice for clinicians screening and diagnosing pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. Learn more at http://ow.ly/vwTR30r4Zwu.
SOURCE: Yuan C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2948.
A new study has linked recent-onset diabetes and subsequent weight loss to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, indicating a distinct group of individuals to screen early for this deadly disease.
“The likelihood of a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was even further elevated among individuals with older age, healthy weight before weight loss, and unintentional weight loss,” wrote Chen Yuan, ScD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. The study was published in JAMA Oncology.
To determine whether an association exists between diabetes plus weight change and pancreatic cancer, the researchers analyzed decades of medical history data from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS). The study population from the NHS included 112,818 women with a mean age of 59 years; the population from the HPFS included 46,207 men with a mean age of 65 years. Since enrollment – the baseline was 1978 for the NHS and 1988 for the HPFS – participants have provided follow-up information via biennial questionnaires.
Recent diabetes onset, weight loss boost cancer risk
From those combined groups, 1,116 incident cases of pancreatic cancer (0.7%) were identified. Compared with patients with no diabetes, patients with recent-onset diabetes had triple the risk of pancreatic cancer (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 2.97; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-3.82) and patients with longstanding diabetes had more than double the risk (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.78-2.60). Patients with longer disease duration also had more than twice the risk of pancreatic cancer, with HRs of 2.25 for those with diabetes for 4-10 years (95% CI, 1.74-2.92) and 2.07 for more than 10 years (95% CI, 1.61-2.66).
Compared with patients who hadn’t lost any weight, patients who reported a 1- to 4-pound weight loss (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03-1.52), a 5- to 8-pound weight loss (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66), and a more than 8-pound weight loss (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.58-2.32) had higher risks of pancreatic cancer. Patients with recent-onset diabetes and a 1- to 8-pound weight loss (91 incident cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 55-151) or a weight loss of more than 8 pounds (164 incident cases per 100,000 person years; 95% CI, 114-238) had a much higher incidence of pancreatic cancer, compared with patients with neither (16 incident cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI, 14-17).
After stratified analyses of patients with both recent-onset diabetes and weight loss, rates of pancreatic cancer were also notably high in those 70 years or older (234 cases per 100,000 person years), those with a body mass index of less than 25 kg/m2 before weight loss (400 cases per 100,000 person years), and those with a low likelihood of intentional weight loss (334 cases per 100,000 person years).
“I like the study because it reminds us of the importance of not thinking everyone that presents with type 2 diabetes necessarily has garden-variety diabetes,” Paul Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “I have always been concerned when a new-onset diabetic individual presents with no family history of diabetes or prediabetes, especially if they’re neither overweight nor obese. I have sometimes screened those individuals for pancreatic abnormalities.”
A call for screening
“This study highlights the consideration for further screening to those with weight loss at the time of diabetes diagnosis, which is very sensible given how unusual weight loss is as a presenting symptom at the time of diagnosis of typical type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Jellinger added. “The combination of weight loss and no family history of diabetes at the time of diagnosis should be an even stronger signal for pancreatic cancer screening and potential detection at a much earlier stage.”
The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including some patients with pancreatic cancer not returning their questionnaires and the timing of the questionnaires meaning that patients could’ve developed diabetes after returning it. In addition, they recognized that the participants were “predominantly White health professionals” and recommended a study of “additional patient populations” in the future.
The authors noted numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from various initiatives, organizations, and pharmaceutical companies.
Review the “AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review” for best practice advice for clinicians screening and diagnosing pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. Learn more at http://ow.ly/vwTR30r4Zwu.
SOURCE: Yuan C et al. JAMA Oncol. 2020 Aug 13. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2948.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
