Jim Kling

An American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update for gastrointestinal pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, emphasizes patient-physician collaboration and improvement of patient understanding of the pathways and mechanisms of pain sensations. It is aimed at management of patients in whom pain persists after first-line therapies fail to resolve visceral causes of pain.

DGBIs include irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome, according to Laurie Keefer, PhD, AGAF, of the division of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. Initial treatment usually focuses on visceral triggers of pain such as food and bowel movements, but this approach is ineffective for many.

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors can impact the treatment of these patients, making it a complex clinical problem that calls for a collaborative approach between the patient and clinician. Opioids and other drugs that could be misused should be avoided, according to the authors. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches can be considered, but the update did not address use of marijuana or other complementary or alternative therapies.

Effective management requires empathy and collaboration. The patient has often seen various other clinicians with suboptimal results, which has left them dissatisfied with their care. Cultural sensitivity is crucial because the understanding and interpretation of pain, and preferred management approaches, vary across cultures.

The first step is a nonjudgmental patient history using open-ended questions. Examples include: “How do your symptoms interfere with your ability to do what you want in your daily life?” or “How are these symptoms impacting your life the most?” These types of questions may identify patients who could benefit from behavioral health interventions.

Questions about symptom-related anxiety can improve understanding of patient concerns and offer an opportunity to address fears. Additional understanding of the patient’s perspective can come from questions like: “What do you think is causing your symptoms,” “Why are you coming to see me now?” and “What are you most concerned about with your symptoms?”

The initial assessment should ideally result in shared goals and expectations for pain management.

Providers should educate the patient about the pathogenesis of pain and how it can be modified. Pain signals can result from innocuous signals from the gut that are misinterpreted by the vigilant brain as it scans for injury or illness. That model might explain why some patients with similar diagnoses have widely differing pain experiences, and offers hope that a change in how one approaches pain might lead to improvements. Patients should be encouraged to avoid too much focus on the cause or a solution to pain, because it can interfere with acceptance of pain or, when needed, treatment.

Opioids should not be prescribed for these patients, and if they are already taking them on referral, it’s important to manage them within a multidisciplinary framework until the opioids can be discontinued. Long-term use of opioids can lead to narcotic bowel syndrome, which results in chronic and often heightened abdominal pain even with escalating opioid doses. Opioid stoppage often must be accompanied by behavioral and psychiatric therapies to ensure success.

Nonpharmacological therapies such as brain-gut psychotherapies should be brought up as potential options early in treatment, even though many patients won’t require this type of care. Early mention is likely to keep the patient more open to trying them because they’re less likely to think of it as a sign of failure or a “last-ditch” approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy works to improve pain management skills and bolster skill deficits, with attention to pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and visceral anxiety through different techniques.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy deals with somatic awareness and the use of imagery and suggestion to reduce pain sensations. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to be effective in inflammatory bowel disease and musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The provider should be familiar with these available methods, but should leave choice of interventions to partner mental health providers.

It’s important to distinguish between gastrointestinal pain with visceral causes and centrally mediated pain. Central sensitization can cause intermittent pain to become persistent even in the absence of ongoing peripheral causes of pain.

Peripheral acting agents affect gastrointestinal pain, and a network meta-analysis identified the top three drugs for pain relief in irritable bowel syndrome as tricyclic antidepressants, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil.

Neuromodulator drugs are an option for DGBI pain because the gut nervous system shares embryonic developmental pathways with the brain and spinal cord, which helps explains some of the benefits of low-dose antidepressants, now termed gut-brain neuromodulators. These drugs should be started at a low dose and gradually titrated according to symptom response and tolerability.

The authors have financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

An American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update for gastrointestinal pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, emphasizes patient-physician collaboration and improvement of patient understanding of the pathways and mechanisms of pain sensations. It is aimed at management of patients in whom pain persists after first-line therapies fail to resolve visceral causes of pain.

DGBIs include irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome, according to Laurie Keefer, PhD, AGAF, of the division of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. Initial treatment usually focuses on visceral triggers of pain such as food and bowel movements, but this approach is ineffective for many.

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors can impact the treatment of these patients, making it a complex clinical problem that calls for a collaborative approach between the patient and clinician. Opioids and other drugs that could be misused should be avoided, according to the authors. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches can be considered, but the update did not address use of marijuana or other complementary or alternative therapies.

Effective management requires empathy and collaboration. The patient has often seen various other clinicians with suboptimal results, which has left them dissatisfied with their care. Cultural sensitivity is crucial because the understanding and interpretation of pain, and preferred management approaches, vary across cultures.

The first step is a nonjudgmental patient history using open-ended questions. Examples include: “How do your symptoms interfere with your ability to do what you want in your daily life?” or “How are these symptoms impacting your life the most?” These types of questions may identify patients who could benefit from behavioral health interventions.

Questions about symptom-related anxiety can improve understanding of patient concerns and offer an opportunity to address fears. Additional understanding of the patient’s perspective can come from questions like: “What do you think is causing your symptoms,” “Why are you coming to see me now?” and “What are you most concerned about with your symptoms?”

The initial assessment should ideally result in shared goals and expectations for pain management.

Providers should educate the patient about the pathogenesis of pain and how it can be modified. Pain signals can result from innocuous signals from the gut that are misinterpreted by the vigilant brain as it scans for injury or illness. That model might explain why some patients with similar diagnoses have widely differing pain experiences, and offers hope that a change in how one approaches pain might lead to improvements. Patients should be encouraged to avoid too much focus on the cause or a solution to pain, because it can interfere with acceptance of pain or, when needed, treatment.

Opioids should not be prescribed for these patients, and if they are already taking them on referral, it’s important to manage them within a multidisciplinary framework until the opioids can be discontinued. Long-term use of opioids can lead to narcotic bowel syndrome, which results in chronic and often heightened abdominal pain even with escalating opioid doses. Opioid stoppage often must be accompanied by behavioral and psychiatric therapies to ensure success.

Nonpharmacological therapies such as brain-gut psychotherapies should be brought up as potential options early in treatment, even though many patients won’t require this type of care. Early mention is likely to keep the patient more open to trying them because they’re less likely to think of it as a sign of failure or a “last-ditch” approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy works to improve pain management skills and bolster skill deficits, with attention to pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and visceral anxiety through different techniques.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy deals with somatic awareness and the use of imagery and suggestion to reduce pain sensations. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to be effective in inflammatory bowel disease and musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The provider should be familiar with these available methods, but should leave choice of interventions to partner mental health providers.

It’s important to distinguish between gastrointestinal pain with visceral causes and centrally mediated pain. Central sensitization can cause intermittent pain to become persistent even in the absence of ongoing peripheral causes of pain.

Peripheral acting agents affect gastrointestinal pain, and a network meta-analysis identified the top three drugs for pain relief in irritable bowel syndrome as tricyclic antidepressants, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil.

Neuromodulator drugs are an option for DGBI pain because the gut nervous system shares embryonic developmental pathways with the brain and spinal cord, which helps explains some of the benefits of low-dose antidepressants, now termed gut-brain neuromodulators. These drugs should be started at a low dose and gradually titrated according to symptom response and tolerability.

The authors have financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

An American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update for gastrointestinal pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, emphasizes patient-physician collaboration and improvement of patient understanding of the pathways and mechanisms of pain sensations. It is aimed at management of patients in whom pain persists after first-line therapies fail to resolve visceral causes of pain.

DGBIs include irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome, according to Laurie Keefer, PhD, AGAF, of the division of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. Initial treatment usually focuses on visceral triggers of pain such as food and bowel movements, but this approach is ineffective for many.

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors can impact the treatment of these patients, making it a complex clinical problem that calls for a collaborative approach between the patient and clinician. Opioids and other drugs that could be misused should be avoided, according to the authors. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches can be considered, but the update did not address use of marijuana or other complementary or alternative therapies.

Effective management requires empathy and collaboration. The patient has often seen various other clinicians with suboptimal results, which has left them dissatisfied with their care. Cultural sensitivity is crucial because the understanding and interpretation of pain, and preferred management approaches, vary across cultures.

The first step is a nonjudgmental patient history using open-ended questions. Examples include: “How do your symptoms interfere with your ability to do what you want in your daily life?” or “How are these symptoms impacting your life the most?” These types of questions may identify patients who could benefit from behavioral health interventions.

Questions about symptom-related anxiety can improve understanding of patient concerns and offer an opportunity to address fears. Additional understanding of the patient’s perspective can come from questions like: “What do you think is causing your symptoms,” “Why are you coming to see me now?” and “What are you most concerned about with your symptoms?”

The initial assessment should ideally result in shared goals and expectations for pain management.

Providers should educate the patient about the pathogenesis of pain and how it can be modified. Pain signals can result from innocuous signals from the gut that are misinterpreted by the vigilant brain as it scans for injury or illness. That model might explain why some patients with similar diagnoses have widely differing pain experiences, and offers hope that a change in how one approaches pain might lead to improvements. Patients should be encouraged to avoid too much focus on the cause or a solution to pain, because it can interfere with acceptance of pain or, when needed, treatment.

Opioids should not be prescribed for these patients, and if they are already taking them on referral, it’s important to manage them within a multidisciplinary framework until the opioids can be discontinued. Long-term use of opioids can lead to narcotic bowel syndrome, which results in chronic and often heightened abdominal pain even with escalating opioid doses. Opioid stoppage often must be accompanied by behavioral and psychiatric therapies to ensure success.

Nonpharmacological therapies such as brain-gut psychotherapies should be brought up as potential options early in treatment, even though many patients won’t require this type of care. Early mention is likely to keep the patient more open to trying them because they’re less likely to think of it as a sign of failure or a “last-ditch” approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy works to improve pain management skills and bolster skill deficits, with attention to pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and visceral anxiety through different techniques.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy deals with somatic awareness and the use of imagery and suggestion to reduce pain sensations. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to be effective in inflammatory bowel disease and musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The provider should be familiar with these available methods, but should leave choice of interventions to partner mental health providers.

It’s important to distinguish between gastrointestinal pain with visceral causes and centrally mediated pain. Central sensitization can cause intermittent pain to become persistent even in the absence of ongoing peripheral causes of pain.

Peripheral acting agents affect gastrointestinal pain, and a network meta-analysis identified the top three drugs for pain relief in irritable bowel syndrome as tricyclic antidepressants, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil.

Neuromodulator drugs are an option for DGBI pain because the gut nervous system shares embryonic developmental pathways with the brain and spinal cord, which helps explains some of the benefits of low-dose antidepressants, now termed gut-brain neuromodulators. These drugs should be started at a low dose and gradually titrated according to symptom response and tolerability.

The authors have financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

LAS VEGAS – In the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, combination therapies using the oral potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan were superior to standard proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–based triple therapy, producing higher eradication rates, according to combined data from a U.S. and a European phase 3 randomized, controlled trial.

Vonoprazan has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval with a Fast Track designation in combination with amoxicillin and clarithromycin (triple therapy) or amoxicillin alone (dual therapy) for treating H. pylori infection. It has already been approved in Japan for the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers, reflux esophagitis, secondary prevention of low-dose aspirin– or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–induced gastric mucosal damage, and for first and second-line H. pylori eradication therapy.

Study details

The study included 1,046 treatment-naive patients who had dyspepsia, a recent or new diagnosis of a nonbleeding peptic ulcer, a history of a peptic ulcer, or long-term stable use of an NSAID. Patients were randomized to PPI-based triple therapy (lansoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin), vonoprazan triple therapy (plus amoxicillin, clarithromycin), or vonoprazan dual therapy (amoxicillin). The treatment period was 14 days, followed by 13C urea breath test (UBT) 4 weeks after treatment.

The researchers conducted several analyses, including: Modified intention-to-treat analyses, which included all enrollees; per protocol analyses, which included patients who took at least 75% of each study medication and underwent 13C UBT in the expected time frame; and a safety population of all patients who took at least one study drug.

Among patients with H. pylori strains that were not resistant to clarithromycin, the PPI-based triple-therapy group had an eradication rate of 78.8%, compared with 84.7% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (P < .0001), and 78.5% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (P = .0037). In the per protocol analysis, PPI-based triple therapy eradicated H. pylori 82.1% of the time, compared with 90.4% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (P < .0001) and 81.2% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (P = .0077). Both vonoprazan treatment groups were noninferior to PPI-based triple therapy.

A prespecified exploratory analysis found that vonoprazan triple therapy outperformed PPI-based triple therapy in the modified intention-to-treat population (P = .0408) and the per protocol population (P = .0059).

Among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains of H. pylori, in the modified intention-to-treat population, 31.9% achieved eradication with PPI triple therapy, compared with 65.8% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group, and 69.6% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group. In the per protocol population, the numbers were 29.0% versus 67.2% and 79.5%, respectively (P < .0001 for both versus PPI triple therapy).

Among all patients, in the modified intention-to-treat population, 68.5% achieved eradication with PPI triple therapy, 80.8% with vonoprazan triple therapy (P =. 0001), and 77.2% with vonoprazan dual therapy (P = .0063)*. In the per protocol population, the numbers were 70.0%, 85.7% (P < .0001), and 81.1% (P = .0013), respectively.

Safety outcomes were similar among the three groups, with treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 34.5% of the PPI triple-therapy group (1.2% discontinued), 34.1% of the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (2.3% discontinued), and 29.9% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (0.9% discontinued).

Fighting against resistance

The efficacy of PPI-based clarithromycin-based triple therapy has fallen below 80% in the United States and Europe over the past few decades, largely because of antibiotic resistance, said William Chey, MD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Chey is a professor of medicine and director of the GI physiology laboratory at Michigan Medicine.

Vonoprazan is more stable in acid than are PPIs, and produces greater and more durable acid reduction, according to Dr. Chey. That’s important for two reasons: One is that some antibiotics are acid-labile, and so may have their efficacy directly impacted in a more acidic environment. The other factor is that most antibiotics work better on bacteria that are actively replicating, and H. pylori reproduces better in a more neutral environment. “So, you increase the replication, you increase the bioavailability of the antibiotics. And therefore, hopefully, that underlies why we see it working better in the patients with [antibiotic] resistance,” Dr. Chey said in an interview.

It remains to be seen whether or not the drug will receive FDA approval, but he pointed to other regimens like bismuth quadruple therapy and rifabutin-based triple therapy that are already available. “If I had the choice, I would never use a PPI-based triple therapy again. People should not be doing that,” said Dr. Chey.

“More successful H. pylori eradication regimens are certainly needed, and these results are particularly relevant and interesting given the increasing failure of initial treatment regimens,” said Kimberly Harer, MD, who moderated the session. She noted that the secondary analysis of patients with clarithromycin-resistant infections was particularly relevant. “The superiority analysis indicating vonoprazan triple therapy resulted in increased H. pylori eradication compared to lanzoprazole triple therapy was especially interesting,” said Dr. Harer, who is a clinical lecturer at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor.

One downside to the study is that it didn’t compare vonoprazan combinations to quadruple therapy of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and a nitroimidazole, said Joseph Jennings, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Other treatment approaches include sequential antibiotics and other combinations. Dr. Jennings also highlighted the findings that the vonoprazan regimens were superior against clarithromycin-resistant strains. “The more different regimens we can add to the armamentarium, the better chance we have because the resistant patterns fluctuate all throughout the world,” said Dr. Jennings, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Georgetown University and director of the center for GI bleeding at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, both in Washington.

He also pointed out that physicians can face a conundrum when patients fail multiple lines of therapy and have testing done that shows high levels of resistance. Some have allergies that prevent them from turning to other antibiotics. “That’s a market where lots of doctors struggle. Something like this would be a nice add-on,” said Dr. Jennings.

The study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals.** Dr. Chey has consulted and/or received research support from Abbvie, Alfasigma, Allakos, Alnylam, Bayer, Bioamerica, Cosmo, Intrinsic Medicine, Ironwood, Modify Health, My GI Health, My Nutrition Health, Nestle, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, QOL Medical, Redhill, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, Urovant, and Vibrant. Dr. Harer and Dr. Jennings have no relevant financial disclosures.

*Correction, 10/29/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of patients in the modified intention-to-treat population who achieved eradication with vonoprazan triple therapy.

**Correction, 10/29/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Phathom Pharmaceuticals.

LAS VEGAS – In the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, combination therapies using the oral potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan were superior to standard proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–based triple therapy, producing higher eradication rates, according to combined data from a U.S. and a European phase 3 randomized, controlled trial.

Vonoprazan has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval with a Fast Track designation in combination with amoxicillin and clarithromycin (triple therapy) or amoxicillin alone (dual therapy) for treating H. pylori infection. It has already been approved in Japan for the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers, reflux esophagitis, secondary prevention of low-dose aspirin– or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–induced gastric mucosal damage, and for first and second-line H. pylori eradication therapy.

Study details

The study included 1,046 treatment-naive patients who had dyspepsia, a recent or new diagnosis of a nonbleeding peptic ulcer, a history of a peptic ulcer, or long-term stable use of an NSAID. Patients were randomized to PPI-based triple therapy (lansoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin), vonoprazan triple therapy (plus amoxicillin, clarithromycin), or vonoprazan dual therapy (amoxicillin). The treatment period was 14 days, followed by 13C urea breath test (UBT) 4 weeks after treatment.

The researchers conducted several analyses, including: Modified intention-to-treat analyses, which included all enrollees; per protocol analyses, which included patients who took at least 75% of each study medication and underwent 13C UBT in the expected time frame; and a safety population of all patients who took at least one study drug.

Among patients with H. pylori strains that were not resistant to clarithromycin, the PPI-based triple-therapy group had an eradication rate of 78.8%, compared with 84.7% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (P < .0001), and 78.5% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (P = .0037). In the per protocol analysis, PPI-based triple therapy eradicated H. pylori 82.1% of the time, compared with 90.4% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (P < .0001) and 81.2% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (P = .0077). Both vonoprazan treatment groups were noninferior to PPI-based triple therapy.

A prespecified exploratory analysis found that vonoprazan triple therapy outperformed PPI-based triple therapy in the modified intention-to-treat population (P = .0408) and the per protocol population (P = .0059).

Among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains of H. pylori, in the modified intention-to-treat population, 31.9% achieved eradication with PPI triple therapy, compared with 65.8% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group, and 69.6% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group. In the per protocol population, the numbers were 29.0% versus 67.2% and 79.5%, respectively (P < .0001 for both versus PPI triple therapy).

Among all patients, in the modified intention-to-treat population, 68.5% achieved eradication with PPI triple therapy, 80.8% with vonoprazan triple therapy (P =. 0001), and 77.2% with vonoprazan dual therapy (P = .0063)*. In the per protocol population, the numbers were 70.0%, 85.7% (P < .0001), and 81.1% (P = .0013), respectively.

Safety outcomes were similar among the three groups, with treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 34.5% of the PPI triple-therapy group (1.2% discontinued), 34.1% of the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (2.3% discontinued), and 29.9% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (0.9% discontinued).

Fighting against resistance

The efficacy of PPI-based clarithromycin-based triple therapy has fallen below 80% in the United States and Europe over the past few decades, largely because of antibiotic resistance, said William Chey, MD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Chey is a professor of medicine and director of the GI physiology laboratory at Michigan Medicine.

Vonoprazan is more stable in acid than are PPIs, and produces greater and more durable acid reduction, according to Dr. Chey. That’s important for two reasons: One is that some antibiotics are acid-labile, and so may have their efficacy directly impacted in a more acidic environment. The other factor is that most antibiotics work better on bacteria that are actively replicating, and H. pylori reproduces better in a more neutral environment. “So, you increase the replication, you increase the bioavailability of the antibiotics. And therefore, hopefully, that underlies why we see it working better in the patients with [antibiotic] resistance,” Dr. Chey said in an interview.

It remains to be seen whether or not the drug will receive FDA approval, but he pointed to other regimens like bismuth quadruple therapy and rifabutin-based triple therapy that are already available. “If I had the choice, I would never use a PPI-based triple therapy again. People should not be doing that,” said Dr. Chey.

“More successful H. pylori eradication regimens are certainly needed, and these results are particularly relevant and interesting given the increasing failure of initial treatment regimens,” said Kimberly Harer, MD, who moderated the session. She noted that the secondary analysis of patients with clarithromycin-resistant infections was particularly relevant. “The superiority analysis indicating vonoprazan triple therapy resulted in increased H. pylori eradication compared to lanzoprazole triple therapy was especially interesting,” said Dr. Harer, who is a clinical lecturer at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor.

One downside to the study is that it didn’t compare vonoprazan combinations to quadruple therapy of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and a nitroimidazole, said Joseph Jennings, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Other treatment approaches include sequential antibiotics and other combinations. Dr. Jennings also highlighted the findings that the vonoprazan regimens were superior against clarithromycin-resistant strains. “The more different regimens we can add to the armamentarium, the better chance we have because the resistant patterns fluctuate all throughout the world,” said Dr. Jennings, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Georgetown University and director of the center for GI bleeding at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, both in Washington.

He also pointed out that physicians can face a conundrum when patients fail multiple lines of therapy and have testing done that shows high levels of resistance. Some have allergies that prevent them from turning to other antibiotics. “That’s a market where lots of doctors struggle. Something like this would be a nice add-on,” said Dr. Jennings.

The study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals.** Dr. Chey has consulted and/or received research support from Abbvie, Alfasigma, Allakos, Alnylam, Bayer, Bioamerica, Cosmo, Intrinsic Medicine, Ironwood, Modify Health, My GI Health, My Nutrition Health, Nestle, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, QOL Medical, Redhill, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, Urovant, and Vibrant. Dr. Harer and Dr. Jennings have no relevant financial disclosures.

*Correction, 10/29/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of patients in the modified intention-to-treat population who achieved eradication with vonoprazan triple therapy.

**Correction, 10/29/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Phathom Pharmaceuticals.

LAS VEGAS – In the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, combination therapies using the oral potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan were superior to standard proton pump inhibitor (PPI)–based triple therapy, producing higher eradication rates, according to combined data from a U.S. and a European phase 3 randomized, controlled trial.

Vonoprazan has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval with a Fast Track designation in combination with amoxicillin and clarithromycin (triple therapy) or amoxicillin alone (dual therapy) for treating H. pylori infection. It has already been approved in Japan for the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers, reflux esophagitis, secondary prevention of low-dose aspirin– or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug–induced gastric mucosal damage, and for first and second-line H. pylori eradication therapy.

Study details

The study included 1,046 treatment-naive patients who had dyspepsia, a recent or new diagnosis of a nonbleeding peptic ulcer, a history of a peptic ulcer, or long-term stable use of an NSAID. Patients were randomized to PPI-based triple therapy (lansoprazole, amoxicillin, clarithromycin), vonoprazan triple therapy (plus amoxicillin, clarithromycin), or vonoprazan dual therapy (amoxicillin). The treatment period was 14 days, followed by 13C urea breath test (UBT) 4 weeks after treatment.

The researchers conducted several analyses, including: Modified intention-to-treat analyses, which included all enrollees; per protocol analyses, which included patients who took at least 75% of each study medication and underwent 13C UBT in the expected time frame; and a safety population of all patients who took at least one study drug.

Among patients with H. pylori strains that were not resistant to clarithromycin, the PPI-based triple-therapy group had an eradication rate of 78.8%, compared with 84.7% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (P < .0001), and 78.5% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (P = .0037). In the per protocol analysis, PPI-based triple therapy eradicated H. pylori 82.1% of the time, compared with 90.4% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (P < .0001) and 81.2% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (P = .0077). Both vonoprazan treatment groups were noninferior to PPI-based triple therapy.

A prespecified exploratory analysis found that vonoprazan triple therapy outperformed PPI-based triple therapy in the modified intention-to-treat population (P = .0408) and the per protocol population (P = .0059).

Among patients with clarithromycin-resistant strains of H. pylori, in the modified intention-to-treat population, 31.9% achieved eradication with PPI triple therapy, compared with 65.8% in the vonoprazan triple-therapy group, and 69.6% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group. In the per protocol population, the numbers were 29.0% versus 67.2% and 79.5%, respectively (P < .0001 for both versus PPI triple therapy).

Among all patients, in the modified intention-to-treat population, 68.5% achieved eradication with PPI triple therapy, 80.8% with vonoprazan triple therapy (P =. 0001), and 77.2% with vonoprazan dual therapy (P = .0063)*. In the per protocol population, the numbers were 70.0%, 85.7% (P < .0001), and 81.1% (P = .0013), respectively.

Safety outcomes were similar among the three groups, with treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 34.5% of the PPI triple-therapy group (1.2% discontinued), 34.1% of the vonoprazan triple-therapy group (2.3% discontinued), and 29.9% in the vonoprazan dual-therapy group (0.9% discontinued).

Fighting against resistance

The efficacy of PPI-based clarithromycin-based triple therapy has fallen below 80% in the United States and Europe over the past few decades, largely because of antibiotic resistance, said William Chey, MD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology. Dr. Chey is a professor of medicine and director of the GI physiology laboratory at Michigan Medicine.

Vonoprazan is more stable in acid than are PPIs, and produces greater and more durable acid reduction, according to Dr. Chey. That’s important for two reasons: One is that some antibiotics are acid-labile, and so may have their efficacy directly impacted in a more acidic environment. The other factor is that most antibiotics work better on bacteria that are actively replicating, and H. pylori reproduces better in a more neutral environment. “So, you increase the replication, you increase the bioavailability of the antibiotics. And therefore, hopefully, that underlies why we see it working better in the patients with [antibiotic] resistance,” Dr. Chey said in an interview.

It remains to be seen whether or not the drug will receive FDA approval, but he pointed to other regimens like bismuth quadruple therapy and rifabutin-based triple therapy that are already available. “If I had the choice, I would never use a PPI-based triple therapy again. People should not be doing that,” said Dr. Chey.

“More successful H. pylori eradication regimens are certainly needed, and these results are particularly relevant and interesting given the increasing failure of initial treatment regimens,” said Kimberly Harer, MD, who moderated the session. She noted that the secondary analysis of patients with clarithromycin-resistant infections was particularly relevant. “The superiority analysis indicating vonoprazan triple therapy resulted in increased H. pylori eradication compared to lanzoprazole triple therapy was especially interesting,” said Dr. Harer, who is a clinical lecturer at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor.

One downside to the study is that it didn’t compare vonoprazan combinations to quadruple therapy of a PPI, bismuth, tetracycline, and a nitroimidazole, said Joseph Jennings, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Other treatment approaches include sequential antibiotics and other combinations. Dr. Jennings also highlighted the findings that the vonoprazan regimens were superior against clarithromycin-resistant strains. “The more different regimens we can add to the armamentarium, the better chance we have because the resistant patterns fluctuate all throughout the world,” said Dr. Jennings, who is an assistant professor of medicine at Georgetown University and director of the center for GI bleeding at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, both in Washington.

He also pointed out that physicians can face a conundrum when patients fail multiple lines of therapy and have testing done that shows high levels of resistance. Some have allergies that prevent them from turning to other antibiotics. “That’s a market where lots of doctors struggle. Something like this would be a nice add-on,” said Dr. Jennings.

The study was funded by Phathom Pharmaceuticals.** Dr. Chey has consulted and/or received research support from Abbvie, Alfasigma, Allakos, Alnylam, Bayer, Bioamerica, Cosmo, Intrinsic Medicine, Ironwood, Modify Health, My GI Health, My Nutrition Health, Nestle, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, QOL Medical, Redhill, Salix/Valeant, Takeda, Urovant, and Vibrant. Dr. Harer and Dr. Jennings have no relevant financial disclosures.

*Correction, 10/29/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the percentage of patients in the modified intention-to-treat population who achieved eradication with vonoprazan triple therapy.

**Correction, 10/29/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of Phathom Pharmaceuticals.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) was equivalent to high-resolution manometry (HRM) in predicting clinical response by Eckardt score 6 months or more after per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia or esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outlet obstruction (EGJOO).

Measures for clinical response following lower esophageal sphincter myotomy procedures include Eckardt Score, timed barium esophagram, HRM, and FLIP. However, since FLIP is a relatively new technique, there are few clinical data comparing its efficacy versus HRM in patients who have a positive response to POEM measured by the Eckardt score, according to John DeWitt, MD, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

FLIP can be performed during a follow-up endoscopy while a patient is sedated, while HRM requires the patient to be awake. Some patients find the procedure intolerable, and Dr. DeWitt estimates that 10%-20% of patients don’t return for follow-up assessments because of the discomfort.

“[FLIP] is a relatively new technology, the role of which is still being discovered. We have a lot more information on the diagnosis side of things. The role in follow-up, particularly after myotomy, is really not defined well. This is the first study to my knowledge that has evaluated manometry and FLIP head-to-head to compare patient-reported outcomes,” said Dr. DeWitt in an interview. He is a professor of medicine and the director of endoscopic ultrasound at Indiana University Medical Center, in Indianapolis.
 

Going head-to-head

The researchers conducted a retrospective, single-center study of 265 consecutive patients who underwent POEM for achalasia or EGJOO from 2016 through 2020. A clinical response was defined as an Eckardt score ≤3, EGJ distensibility index (EGJ-DI) higher than 2.8 mm²/mm Hg, maximum integrated relaxation pressure (IRP) <15 mm Hg, or a maximum EGJ diameter greater than 14 mm at any balloon distension.

In all, 126 patients returned for follow-up and completed an upper endoscopy with FLIP, HRM, and Eckardt scores within a 6-12 month period after the POEM procedure.

With respect to HRM, an IRP measurement <15 mm Hg predicted post-POEM Eckardt score with a sensitivity of 86.7% (95% confidence interval, 79.3-92.2) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an area under the curve of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.39-0.81). A maximum EJG diameter ≥ 14 mm had a sensitivity of 77.5% (95% CI, 69.0-84.6) and a specificity of 33.3% (95% CI, 4.3-77.7), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.34-0.76).

The performance was similar with FLIP: EGJ-DI > 2.8 mm²/mm Hg at any balloon setting had a sensitivity of 95.0% (95% CI, 89.4-98.1) and a specificity% of 0.0, and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.55). A similar measurement at 40 mL or 50 mL distension had a sensitivity of 93.3% (95% CI, 87.3-97.1) and a specificity of 16.7% (95% CI, 0.4-64.1), with an AUC of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.39-0.72). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed no significant difference between ability of FLIP and HRM to predict a normal Eckardt score.

If the study is repeated in other patient populations, Dr. DeWitt hopes that it could eliminate manometry altogether in a large majority of patients. “That would be potentially a game changer for bringing patients back to see how well they’re doing,” said Dr. DeWitt.

Not all patients who undergo POEM would be good candidates for FLIP, said Dr. DeWitt. The study was limited to patients with hypertension in the lower esophageal sphincter. Other disorders such as diffuse esophageal spasm, jackhammer esophagus, and type III achalasia would not likely be candidates for FLIP. “Those patients are going to probably still need manometry because if the esophageal body abnormalities are still present, then repeat testing might need to be performed,” said Dr. DeWitt. Still, he estimated about 80% of patients could be eligible for FLIP instead.
 

Impact on patients

“I think it’s interesting new data,” said Patrick Young, MD, who comoderated the session where the research was presented. He noted that the treatment of achalasia is evolving away from surgery, and the techniques to measure response are evolving along with it. “As we progress in that technology and using that procedure, we need to understand better how to follow those people up. I think adding this new device may help us to understand who’s going to respond well, and who’s not going to respond well. This is an early investigation, so I think we’ll need to do trials, but I think this is a good first step,” said Dr. Young, who is a professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.

Comoderator Mohammad Yaghoobi, MD, also praised the study, but noted that the cost of FLIP could be a concern. “We want to have a reasonable ratio of the cost versus the effectiveness,” said Dr. Yaghoobi, who is an associate professor of medicine at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Young, and Dr. Yaghoobi had no relevant disclosures.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

LAS VEGAS –Data from the 28-week extension of the Liberty EoE TREET phase 3 clinical trial showed that the anti–interleukin-4/IL-13 antibody dupilumab led to long-term improvement in eosinophil count, histology, and patient-reported symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) out to 28 weeks. Dupilumab is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis.

Many patients don’t respond to the standard therapies of proton pump inhibitors, steroids, or diet. Some evidence suggests that EoE might be driven by type 2 inflammation, and dupilumab’s effect on the shared receptor of IL-4 and IL-13 directly counters that pathway.

“The current treatments are [proton pump inhibitors], steroids, or diet – a good proportion of patients don’t respond to them. And they’re also not targeted,” Evan Dellon, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. Dr. Dellon presented the research at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“The bottom line is that people who responded up front to dupilumab maintain that response to a year, and the people on placebo gained a similar response as the people who were treated. It looked good. It was histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes,” said Dr. Dellon.

Many of the patients in the new study were steroid refractory, making it a difficult population to treat, according to Dr. Dellon. “You can’t compare to the steroid-treated patients, but the 6-month data showed about a 60% response rate histologically, which is right up there with where steroids and diet are for easier to treat patients. So the fact that it’s a harder to treat cohort is pretty impressive from that standpoint,” said Dr. Dellon.

Data from the first 24 weeks was previously reported at UEG Week 2020 and showed that dupilumab outperformed placebo in EoE patients aged 12 years and older, with dupilumab producing better outcomes in peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count and change in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) Score at 24 weeks.

At ACG 2021, Dr. Dellon reported on 52-week results, where all patients from both treated and placebo groups received dupilumab after the initial 24-week phase. Dupilumab reduced dysphagia symptoms as measured by the absolute change in DSQ score at 24 weeks (–21.9 vs. –9.6; P < .001). At 52 weeks, the dupilumab group showed a change of –23.4 from the start of the study, and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a DSQ score change of –21.7. Dupilumab also led to a greater percentage reduction in DSQ score by 24 weeks (69.2% versus 31.7%; P < .001); at 52 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 75.9% reduction and the placebo-to-dupilumab group had a 65.9% reduction (no significant difference).

The dupilumab group had a greater proportion of patients who achieved peak esophageal eosinophil count of 6 eosinophils or less per high power field at 24 weeks (59.5% vs. 5.1%); at 52 weeks, 55.9% had achieved this measure, versus 60.0% of the placebo-to-dupilumab group. At 24 weeks, the dupilumab group had a 71.2% reduction in peak eosinophil count from baseline versus –3.0% in placebo (P < .001). At week 52, the reductions were 88.6% and 83.8%, respectively.

Histology features were improved with dupilumab. At week 24, the absolute change in histology scoring system mean grade score (histologic severity) from initial baseline was greater in the dupilumab group (least squares mean, –0.761 vs. –0.001; P < .001). The improvement continued at week 52 (LS mean, –0.87) and occurred in the placebo-to-dupilumab group (LS mean, –0.87). The dupilumab group had a greater absolute change in mean stage score at 24 weeks (histologic extent, LS mean, –0.753 vs. –0.012; P < .001) and 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.89), while the placebo-to-dupilumab group achieved a similar change at 52 weeks (LS mean, –0.87).

Endoscopic features improved in the dupilumab group as measured by endoscopic reference score at 24 weeks (LS mean, –3.2 versus –0.3; P <.001) and at 52 weeks (LS mean, –4.1). The placebo-to-dupilumab group had a similar outcome at 52 weeks (LS mean, –3.9).

Dupilumab was well tolerated, with the only significant difference in treatment-emergent adverse events being injection-site reactions and injection-site erythema.

“I thought the data was really impressive and compelling,” said Amy Oxentenko, MD, chair of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, who comoderated the session. “It’d be nice to have something like this that is a targeted therapy that clearly shows improvement in not only some of the symptoms and histology, but also having an impact possibly on that fibrotic piece, which I think is really the area of morbidity in these patients long term.”

If approved, dupilumab could improve compliance among patients, who sometimes struggle with taking topical steroids properly, said comoderator David Hass, MD, who is an associate clinical professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He also agreed that the potential for remodeling would be a significant benefit over steroids.

One concern with dupilumab would be any potential for immune suppression. “It’s always something to think about,” Dr. Hass said.

LIBERTY EoE TREET was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron. Dr. Dellon has consulted and received research support from numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Oxentenko and Dr. Hass have no relevant financial disclosures.

This article was updated Nov. 4, 2021.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Among pediatric patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), some specific clinical characteristics, as well as treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), are linked to less future disability.

An estimated 3%-10% of MS patients are diagnosed during childhood. These patients experience a higher relapse rate and have higher magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity than do adult-onset patients. They have a slower rate of progression, but they reach irreversible disability milestones at an early age, with more than 50% having secondary progressive disease by age 30.

Studies in adults suggest that use of high-efficacy DMTs is most effective when initiated during the early active phase of MS, but little is known about children. “Early recognition of predictors of faster disability in children is crucial for clinicians to make the treatment decisions at the earliest possible time,” Sifat Sharmin, PhD, said during her presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS). Dr. Sharmin is a statistician and research fellow at the University of Melbourne.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“I think the most important observation that was made here is the protective factor of use of high efficacy disease modifying therapies,” said Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, who was asked to comment on the study.

That result wasn’t unexpected, but it should provide reassurance. “For parents of children who are hesitant about use of high efficacy therapies, this study provides supporting evidence for use of these high efficacy therapies early on, to try and prevent irreversible disability from occurring,” said Dr. Cree, professor of clinical neurology and the George A. Zimmermann Endowed Professor in Multiple Sclerosis at the University of California at San Francisco UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences.

The study provides real-world data to back up findings from a phase 3 clinical trial that showed fewer relapses and fewer new lesions in pediatric patients with MS who were taking fingolimod versus interferon beta-1a.

“Given a large randomized, controlled trial, and now with this additional real-world data set showing the same thing, the only conclusion to reach is that if you’ve got a kid with MS, they should be treated with fingolimod,” said Dr. Cree. He noted that other DMTs such as natalizumab may also benefit pediatric patients, but fingolimod is the only drug that has been studied in randomized, controlled trials in children.

Real-world data

The researchers analyzed data from 672 patients drawn from the international MSBase Neuroimmunology Registry, who had undergone neurological assessment within 1 year of symptom onset and had at least two annual visits where the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) was recorded. They sought to identify predictors of Multiple Sclerosis Severity Score (MSSS). A secondary analysis looked at predictors of EDSS sustained worsening at 6 months, defined as an increase of 1.5 if EDSS baseline was 0, 1.0 or more if baseline EDSS was 1.0-5.5, or 0.5 if baseline EDSS was over 5.5.

The researchers also conducted a sensitivity analysis that looked at relapse phenotypes and relapse frequency in the first year, as well as a subgroup analysis of patients with available MRI data from the first year. The researchers adjusted for time on high-efficacy DMTs at each visit.

Among the study participants, 70% were female. The median age of onset was 16 years. The median EDSS score was 1.5 at inclusion, and the median score was 1.0 at follow-up of 3 years. At 6 months, 82 worsening events occurred in 57 patients.

A total of 76% of the patients were treated with DMTs. The most commonly prescribed DMTs were interferon beta (40.63%), natalizumab (8.48%), and fingolimod (6.40%). Seventy-eight percent of those who received DMTs started treatment before age 18. Twenty-seven percent received high-efficacy DMTs.

The analysis showed associations between disability and older age at onset [exp(beta), 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.16], maximum EDSS score during the first year of disease [exp(beta), 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.36], or first-year pyramidal symptoms [exp(beta), 1.34; 95% CI, 1.13-1.58], visual symptoms [exp(beta), 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48], or cerebellum symptoms [exp(beta), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.39]. A greater amount of time on high-efficacy DMTs was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99].

A complete recovery from the first relapse was associated with a lower probability of relapse, though this association did not reach statistical significance [exp(beta), 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03].

The secondary analyses found that the only predictor of 6-month EDSS worsening [exp(beta), 1.32; 95% CI, 1.21-1.45] was having a maximum EDSS score in the first year. Sensitivity analyses of complete and incomplete recovery from relapses found that a higher MSSS was associated incomplete recovery [exp(beta), 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32], and confirmed the primary finding that recovery from first relapse was associated with a lower probability of disability [exp(beta), 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96].

Among patients with MRI data, a new MRI lesion in year 1 was associated with a lower future MSSS score [exp(beta), 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99].

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The study authors disclosed ties with a wide range of pharmaceutical companies, including Biogen and Novartis. Dr. Cree has consulted for Biogen, Novartis, and other pharmaceutical companies.

Motor imagery (MI) is a useful tool in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), with the potential to improve balance, walking, and even cognitive function and mental health. It’s a technique that many think of as the realm of professional athletes, who use it to help mentally prepare for physical activity. But the underlying mechanism has broad applicability, even in patients with MS who have disability.

The method recruits and employs motor-related areas within the brain, which suggests that it has functional equivalence to carrying out the rehearsed movement. The mental chronometry is also similar between imagined and executed actions, said Barbara Seebacher, PhD, who discussed MI during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

MI involves mentally rehearsing movements, and so requires working memory. The patient must also have the fundamental ability to carry out the action, so it isn’t much use having nonambulatory patients imagine themselves walking. “The mental representations need to be available,” said Dr. Seebacher, a researcher at Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria.

During MI, individuals may imagine themselves from a first- or third-person view. The experience may be visual, as in picturing oneself moving, or kinesthetic, as in imagining the feeling of movement. There can be implicit components, such as imagining a projection of the speed and distance of an approaching car, and explicit, such as imagining the personal movement of walking across the street.

The use of MI in MS rehabilitation is a relatively new development, with no reports before 2010. One early, uncontrolled study found improvements in fatigue and quality of life when MI was combined with physical practice in 20 patients. Another study published in 2012 found that MS patients had worse MI accuracy and temporal organization than that of healthy controls, and that MI accuracy was associated with cognitive impairment.

A study in 2012 used visual and rhythmic cues combined with MI, and compared results when those cues were present or absent during MI. The cues produced much better results. Dr. Seebacher’s group has used rhythmic, auditory-cued MI of walking in people with MS. Approaches included music cueing, music and verbal cueing, metronome and verbal cueing, and no cue MI. “We found significant effects after all of these approaches, but the greatest effects were shown after music and verbally-cued MI practice,” said Dr. Seebacher.

MI ability appears to be impaired by longer MS disease duration, more severe disability, depression and anxiety, and cognitive fatigue. “All of this contributes to timing deficits in performing mental movements and to deficits in the spatial organization of imagined movements,” said Dr. Seebacher.

In contrast, studies have shown that MI training improves dynamic balance, walking, perceived walking ability, balance, confidence, cognition, fatigue, anxiety and depression, quality of life, and health-related quality of life.

Rehabilitation specialists can help patients achieve success with MI by letting them select their preferred perspective, first or third person, at least during initial sessions. Patients can also be given the choice to use a more dexterous, more often-used body part, at least in initial MI sessions. External rhythmic, audio, or visual cuing can be offered.

Dr. Seebacher has developed an initial framework for helping patients to improve their MI ability. This includes assessing rhythmicity of single imagined movements to help ensure that MI and movements are functionally equivalent. Another step is to incorporate movements that are meaningful to the patients, to help ensure that they are emotionally engaged with the exercise. Research conducted primarily in stroke patients has shown that embedding physical practice into MI, or adding physical movement to MI, can enhance sensory feedback.

Motor learning principles from neurorehabilitation also apply to MI, such as beginning with simple tasks and progressing to more complex tasks, as well as use of blocked practice before turning to random practice. “All this should help our patients to perform MI more easily and to gain a greater benefit,” said Dr. Seebacher.

The potential of MI piqued the interest of comoderator Hanneke Hulst, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, during the Q&A session. “It’s actually very intriguing and interesting,” she said, and then asked Dr. Seebacher how difficult MI is to implement in a rehabilitation program, especially for someone who isn’t a rehabilitation specialist.

Dr. Seebacher responded that it can be difficult, especially because patients and therapists usually aren’t familiar with MI. “Whenever I explain MI to patients, I compare it with athletes, because everybody knows that athletes use mental training, together with their physical training. And this is something patients can identify themselves with,” said Dr. Seebacher. It’s also vital that the patient has preserved cognitive function, and is open to a new therapeutic approach. “If somebody just wants to act the same way that they did all the time, it may not be useful for these patients,” said Dr. Seebacher.

MI is also useful for patients who have difficulty with physical training, for example following relapses, or for those who are at greater risk of falling.

Dr. Seebacher has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hulst has consulted with or served on the scientific advisory boards of Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, Merck, and Roche.

Motor imagery (MI) is a useful tool in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), with the potential to improve balance, walking, and even cognitive function and mental health. It’s a technique that many think of as the realm of professional athletes, who use it to help mentally prepare for physical activity. But the underlying mechanism has broad applicability, even in patients with MS who have disability.

The method recruits and employs motor-related areas within the brain, which suggests that it has functional equivalence to carrying out the rehearsed movement. The mental chronometry is also similar between imagined and executed actions, said Barbara Seebacher, PhD, who discussed MI during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

MI involves mentally rehearsing movements, and so requires working memory. The patient must also have the fundamental ability to carry out the action, so it isn’t much use having nonambulatory patients imagine themselves walking. “The mental representations need to be available,” said Dr. Seebacher, a researcher at Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria.

During MI, individuals may imagine themselves from a first- or third-person view. The experience may be visual, as in picturing oneself moving, or kinesthetic, as in imagining the feeling of movement. There can be implicit components, such as imagining a projection of the speed and distance of an approaching car, and explicit, such as imagining the personal movement of walking across the street.

The use of MI in MS rehabilitation is a relatively new development, with no reports before 2010. One early, uncontrolled study found improvements in fatigue and quality of life when MI was combined with physical practice in 20 patients. Another study published in 2012 found that MS patients had worse MI accuracy and temporal organization than that of healthy controls, and that MI accuracy was associated with cognitive impairment.

A study in 2012 used visual and rhythmic cues combined with MI, and compared results when those cues were present or absent during MI. The cues produced much better results. Dr. Seebacher’s group has used rhythmic, auditory-cued MI of walking in people with MS. Approaches included music cueing, music and verbal cueing, metronome and verbal cueing, and no cue MI. “We found significant effects after all of these approaches, but the greatest effects were shown after music and verbally-cued MI practice,” said Dr. Seebacher.

MI ability appears to be impaired by longer MS disease duration, more severe disability, depression and anxiety, and cognitive fatigue. “All of this contributes to timing deficits in performing mental movements and to deficits in the spatial organization of imagined movements,” said Dr. Seebacher.

In contrast, studies have shown that MI training improves dynamic balance, walking, perceived walking ability, balance, confidence, cognition, fatigue, anxiety and depression, quality of life, and health-related quality of life.

Rehabilitation specialists can help patients achieve success with MI by letting them select their preferred perspective, first or third person, at least during initial sessions. Patients can also be given the choice to use a more dexterous, more often-used body part, at least in initial MI sessions. External rhythmic, audio, or visual cuing can be offered.

Dr. Seebacher has developed an initial framework for helping patients to improve their MI ability. This includes assessing rhythmicity of single imagined movements to help ensure that MI and movements are functionally equivalent. Another step is to incorporate movements that are meaningful to the patients, to help ensure that they are emotionally engaged with the exercise. Research conducted primarily in stroke patients has shown that embedding physical practice into MI, or adding physical movement to MI, can enhance sensory feedback.

Motor learning principles from neurorehabilitation also apply to MI, such as beginning with simple tasks and progressing to more complex tasks, as well as use of blocked practice before turning to random practice. “All this should help our patients to perform MI more easily and to gain a greater benefit,” said Dr. Seebacher.

The potential of MI piqued the interest of comoderator Hanneke Hulst, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, during the Q&A session. “It’s actually very intriguing and interesting,” she said, and then asked Dr. Seebacher how difficult MI is to implement in a rehabilitation program, especially for someone who isn’t a rehabilitation specialist.

Dr. Seebacher responded that it can be difficult, especially because patients and therapists usually aren’t familiar with MI. “Whenever I explain MI to patients, I compare it with athletes, because everybody knows that athletes use mental training, together with their physical training. And this is something patients can identify themselves with,” said Dr. Seebacher. It’s also vital that the patient has preserved cognitive function, and is open to a new therapeutic approach. “If somebody just wants to act the same way that they did all the time, it may not be useful for these patients,” said Dr. Seebacher.

MI is also useful for patients who have difficulty with physical training, for example following relapses, or for those who are at greater risk of falling.

Dr. Seebacher has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hulst has consulted with or served on the scientific advisory boards of Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, Merck, and Roche.

Motor imagery (MI) is a useful tool in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), with the potential to improve balance, walking, and even cognitive function and mental health. It’s a technique that many think of as the realm of professional athletes, who use it to help mentally prepare for physical activity. But the underlying mechanism has broad applicability, even in patients with MS who have disability.

The method recruits and employs motor-related areas within the brain, which suggests that it has functional equivalence to carrying out the rehearsed movement. The mental chronometry is also similar between imagined and executed actions, said Barbara Seebacher, PhD, who discussed MI during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

MI involves mentally rehearsing movements, and so requires working memory. The patient must also have the fundamental ability to carry out the action, so it isn’t much use having nonambulatory patients imagine themselves walking. “The mental representations need to be available,” said Dr. Seebacher, a researcher at Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria.

During MI, individuals may imagine themselves from a first- or third-person view. The experience may be visual, as in picturing oneself moving, or kinesthetic, as in imagining the feeling of movement. There can be implicit components, such as imagining a projection of the speed and distance of an approaching car, and explicit, such as imagining the personal movement of walking across the street.

The use of MI in MS rehabilitation is a relatively new development, with no reports before 2010. One early, uncontrolled study found improvements in fatigue and quality of life when MI was combined with physical practice in 20 patients. Another study published in 2012 found that MS patients had worse MI accuracy and temporal organization than that of healthy controls, and that MI accuracy was associated with cognitive impairment.

A study in 2012 used visual and rhythmic cues combined with MI, and compared results when those cues were present or absent during MI. The cues produced much better results. Dr. Seebacher’s group has used rhythmic, auditory-cued MI of walking in people with MS. Approaches included music cueing, music and verbal cueing, metronome and verbal cueing, and no cue MI. “We found significant effects after all of these approaches, but the greatest effects were shown after music and verbally-cued MI practice,” said Dr. Seebacher.

MI ability appears to be impaired by longer MS disease duration, more severe disability, depression and anxiety, and cognitive fatigue. “All of this contributes to timing deficits in performing mental movements and to deficits in the spatial organization of imagined movements,” said Dr. Seebacher.

In contrast, studies have shown that MI training improves dynamic balance, walking, perceived walking ability, balance, confidence, cognition, fatigue, anxiety and depression, quality of life, and health-related quality of life.

Rehabilitation specialists can help patients achieve success with MI by letting them select their preferred perspective, first or third person, at least during initial sessions. Patients can also be given the choice to use a more dexterous, more often-used body part, at least in initial MI sessions. External rhythmic, audio, or visual cuing can be offered.

Dr. Seebacher has developed an initial framework for helping patients to improve their MI ability. This includes assessing rhythmicity of single imagined movements to help ensure that MI and movements are functionally equivalent. Another step is to incorporate movements that are meaningful to the patients, to help ensure that they are emotionally engaged with the exercise. Research conducted primarily in stroke patients has shown that embedding physical practice into MI, or adding physical movement to MI, can enhance sensory feedback.

Motor learning principles from neurorehabilitation also apply to MI, such as beginning with simple tasks and progressing to more complex tasks, as well as use of blocked practice before turning to random practice. “All this should help our patients to perform MI more easily and to gain a greater benefit,” said Dr. Seebacher.

The potential of MI piqued the interest of comoderator Hanneke Hulst, PhD, assistant professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center, during the Q&A session. “It’s actually very intriguing and interesting,” she said, and then asked Dr. Seebacher how difficult MI is to implement in a rehabilitation program, especially for someone who isn’t a rehabilitation specialist.

Dr. Seebacher responded that it can be difficult, especially because patients and therapists usually aren’t familiar with MI. “Whenever I explain MI to patients, I compare it with athletes, because everybody knows that athletes use mental training, together with their physical training. And this is something patients can identify themselves with,” said Dr. Seebacher. It’s also vital that the patient has preserved cognitive function, and is open to a new therapeutic approach. “If somebody just wants to act the same way that they did all the time, it may not be useful for these patients,” said Dr. Seebacher.

MI is also useful for patients who have difficulty with physical training, for example following relapses, or for those who are at greater risk of falling.

Dr. Seebacher has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Hulst has consulted with or served on the scientific advisory boards of Biogen, Celgene, Genzyme, Merck, and Roche.

Though once regarded with suspicion, exercise as a therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) has gained traction in recent years, and has the potential to counter the physical effects often seen among patients, as well as reduce risk of progression.

That was the key message of a talk given by Ulrik Dalgas, PhD, professor of exercise biology at Aarhus University in Denmark, who spoke at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Rethinking the role of exercise

It used to be thought that exercise could worsen disease, but case studies in the 1960s suggested some beneficial effects. The first interventional studies were published in the 1990s. A 2008 special issue of Multiple Sclerosis Journal declared exercise safe for people with MS. Research has continued to evolve, “and now we are actually at a stage where some of us have started to believe that exercise is a medicine in multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Dalgas, who outlined that view in a 2019 review paper.

In the early phase of MS, before the onset of a significant decline in brain volume or increase in disability, there are already measurable physical deficits. Dr. Dalgas showed data from an unpublished study from his group, which looked at 48 patients who had been diagnosed in the previous 2 years, at an average 10 months after diagnosis. “Already at this very early stage of the disease, we can actually observe impairments or deficits in walking, different walking outcome measures here between 10 and up to more than 30%, depending on the walking outcome,” said Dr. Dalgas. Similar deficits appeared in physical activity and maximum rate of oxygen consumption (VO₂ max).

Animal studies suggest that exercise could improve matters at this stage. In a model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, animals allowed the opportunity to exercise had lower levels of clinical disability throughout the model disease course. That has led some to examine a “prehabilitation” approach to early MS – a term borrowed from orthopedics. “We try to prevent rather than to treat symptoms, or build reserve capacity rather than restore capacity,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Some work in this area has been done in human patients, but a review found that none of more than 70 published studies looked at patients within 5 years of onset. “That left kind of an unstudied early phase,” said Dr. Dalgas.

In the mid-phase of MS, when brain volume loss increases and mobility and other problems increase, exercise has proved to counteract some of these issues. “What we are now trying to do is figure out what are the best exercise modalities for treating different symptoms,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Resistance and aerobic training have predictable, positive effects on strength and VO₂ max, but one study showed that the two modes of exercise had similar positive impacts on short and long walks, as well as fatigue, despite the fact that they have very different physiological effects.

Other studies have looked at the impact of exercise on the diseases itself. One recent study examined aerobic exercise versus a wait-list group. Gray matter volume remained stable in the exercise group, but dropped in the wait-list group, suggesting a possible protective effect .

In the later, more severe phase of MS, more specialized equipment is needed to ensure safety during exercise. A pilot study by Dr. Dalgas’ group in individuals with Expanded Disability Status Scores (EDSS) scores between 6.5 and 8 found that upper body exercise improved VO₂ peak score in five out of six patients. “Even at this later stage of the disease, it seems that people can still have important improvements in health and performance markers,” said Dr. Dalgas.

A review of numerous studies found that exercise had a positive effect on quality of life, and the gains were not affected by baseline disability, disease duration, or exercise type. The study shows that “it’s never too late to improve your life through exercise,” said Dr. Dalgas.
 

Next steps

Challenges remain for the field. “We still need to figure out how long-term adherence is best secured in these patients, and then we really need to look further into how to provide exercise in the best possible way in severe and elderly patients,” said Dr. Dalgas.

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Dr. Dalgas was asked for advice on how to get a patient with MS started with exercise. “We normally recommend that people should find a physical therapist or sports scientist who has expertise in this field to help with getting started. If you start out wrong you can get into problems, so having the right expertise at hand is a good way to start. Then shortly afterward they will be more independent to do the exercise,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Alan Thompson, MD, who moderated the session, brought up the concept of cognitive reserve in MS, which posits that positive life experience builds up the capacity and efficiency of neural networks, which in turn act as a sort of buffer against later cognitive decline due to aging and illness. “Can you build up your exercises in a way that has a meaningful impact in delaying the onset of confirmed disability or progression?” asked Dr. Thompson, professor of clinical neurology and neurorehabilitation at University College London.

Dr. Dalgas said that there are studies that suggest this may be true, with MS diagnoses occurring later in patients who are physically active. “You can interpret that as some kind of delayed onset of the disease.”

For more information, Dr. Dalgas suggested recently published recommendations for exercise in MS patients.

Dr. Dalgas disclosed ties with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi Aventis, Almirall, Novartis, Bayer Schering, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Thompson has no relevant financial disclosures.

Though once regarded with suspicion, exercise as a therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) has gained traction in recent years, and has the potential to counter the physical effects often seen among patients, as well as reduce risk of progression.

That was the key message of a talk given by Ulrik Dalgas, PhD, professor of exercise biology at Aarhus University in Denmark, who spoke at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Rethinking the role of exercise

It used to be thought that exercise could worsen disease, but case studies in the 1960s suggested some beneficial effects. The first interventional studies were published in the 1990s. A 2008 special issue of Multiple Sclerosis Journal declared exercise safe for people with MS. Research has continued to evolve, “and now we are actually at a stage where some of us have started to believe that exercise is a medicine in multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Dalgas, who outlined that view in a 2019 review paper.

In the early phase of MS, before the onset of a significant decline in brain volume or increase in disability, there are already measurable physical deficits. Dr. Dalgas showed data from an unpublished study from his group, which looked at 48 patients who had been diagnosed in the previous 2 years, at an average 10 months after diagnosis. “Already at this very early stage of the disease, we can actually observe impairments or deficits in walking, different walking outcome measures here between 10 and up to more than 30%, depending on the walking outcome,” said Dr. Dalgas. Similar deficits appeared in physical activity and maximum rate of oxygen consumption (VO₂ max).

Animal studies suggest that exercise could improve matters at this stage. In a model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, animals allowed the opportunity to exercise had lower levels of clinical disability throughout the model disease course. That has led some to examine a “prehabilitation” approach to early MS – a term borrowed from orthopedics. “We try to prevent rather than to treat symptoms, or build reserve capacity rather than restore capacity,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Some work in this area has been done in human patients, but a review found that none of more than 70 published studies looked at patients within 5 years of onset. “That left kind of an unstudied early phase,” said Dr. Dalgas.

In the mid-phase of MS, when brain volume loss increases and mobility and other problems increase, exercise has proved to counteract some of these issues. “What we are now trying to do is figure out what are the best exercise modalities for treating different symptoms,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Resistance and aerobic training have predictable, positive effects on strength and VO₂ max, but one study showed that the two modes of exercise had similar positive impacts on short and long walks, as well as fatigue, despite the fact that they have very different physiological effects.

Other studies have looked at the impact of exercise on the diseases itself. One recent study examined aerobic exercise versus a wait-list group. Gray matter volume remained stable in the exercise group, but dropped in the wait-list group, suggesting a possible protective effect .

In the later, more severe phase of MS, more specialized equipment is needed to ensure safety during exercise. A pilot study by Dr. Dalgas’ group in individuals with Expanded Disability Status Scores (EDSS) scores between 6.5 and 8 found that upper body exercise improved VO₂ peak score in five out of six patients. “Even at this later stage of the disease, it seems that people can still have important improvements in health and performance markers,” said Dr. Dalgas.

A review of numerous studies found that exercise had a positive effect on quality of life, and the gains were not affected by baseline disability, disease duration, or exercise type. The study shows that “it’s never too late to improve your life through exercise,” said Dr. Dalgas.
 

Next steps

Challenges remain for the field. “We still need to figure out how long-term adherence is best secured in these patients, and then we really need to look further into how to provide exercise in the best possible way in severe and elderly patients,” said Dr. Dalgas.

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Dr. Dalgas was asked for advice on how to get a patient with MS started with exercise. “We normally recommend that people should find a physical therapist or sports scientist who has expertise in this field to help with getting started. If you start out wrong you can get into problems, so having the right expertise at hand is a good way to start. Then shortly afterward they will be more independent to do the exercise,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Alan Thompson, MD, who moderated the session, brought up the concept of cognitive reserve in MS, which posits that positive life experience builds up the capacity and efficiency of neural networks, which in turn act as a sort of buffer against later cognitive decline due to aging and illness. “Can you build up your exercises in a way that has a meaningful impact in delaying the onset of confirmed disability or progression?” asked Dr. Thompson, professor of clinical neurology and neurorehabilitation at University College London.

Dr. Dalgas said that there are studies that suggest this may be true, with MS diagnoses occurring later in patients who are physically active. “You can interpret that as some kind of delayed onset of the disease.”

For more information, Dr. Dalgas suggested recently published recommendations for exercise in MS patients.

Dr. Dalgas disclosed ties with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi Aventis, Almirall, Novartis, Bayer Schering, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Thompson has no relevant financial disclosures.

Though once regarded with suspicion, exercise as a therapy for multiple sclerosis (MS) has gained traction in recent years, and has the potential to counter the physical effects often seen among patients, as well as reduce risk of progression.

That was the key message of a talk given by Ulrik Dalgas, PhD, professor of exercise biology at Aarhus University in Denmark, who spoke at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).
 

Rethinking the role of exercise

It used to be thought that exercise could worsen disease, but case studies in the 1960s suggested some beneficial effects. The first interventional studies were published in the 1990s. A 2008 special issue of Multiple Sclerosis Journal declared exercise safe for people with MS. Research has continued to evolve, “and now we are actually at a stage where some of us have started to believe that exercise is a medicine in multiple sclerosis,” said Dr. Dalgas, who outlined that view in a 2019 review paper.

In the early phase of MS, before the onset of a significant decline in brain volume or increase in disability, there are already measurable physical deficits. Dr. Dalgas showed data from an unpublished study from his group, which looked at 48 patients who had been diagnosed in the previous 2 years, at an average 10 months after diagnosis. “Already at this very early stage of the disease, we can actually observe impairments or deficits in walking, different walking outcome measures here between 10 and up to more than 30%, depending on the walking outcome,” said Dr. Dalgas. Similar deficits appeared in physical activity and maximum rate of oxygen consumption (VO₂ max).

Animal studies suggest that exercise could improve matters at this stage. In a model of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, animals allowed the opportunity to exercise had lower levels of clinical disability throughout the model disease course. That has led some to examine a “prehabilitation” approach to early MS – a term borrowed from orthopedics. “We try to prevent rather than to treat symptoms, or build reserve capacity rather than restore capacity,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Some work in this area has been done in human patients, but a review found that none of more than 70 published studies looked at patients within 5 years of onset. “That left kind of an unstudied early phase,” said Dr. Dalgas.

In the mid-phase of MS, when brain volume loss increases and mobility and other problems increase, exercise has proved to counteract some of these issues. “What we are now trying to do is figure out what are the best exercise modalities for treating different symptoms,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Resistance and aerobic training have predictable, positive effects on strength and VO₂ max, but one study showed that the two modes of exercise had similar positive impacts on short and long walks, as well as fatigue, despite the fact that they have very different physiological effects.

Other studies have looked at the impact of exercise on the diseases itself. One recent study examined aerobic exercise versus a wait-list group. Gray matter volume remained stable in the exercise group, but dropped in the wait-list group, suggesting a possible protective effect .

In the later, more severe phase of MS, more specialized equipment is needed to ensure safety during exercise. A pilot study by Dr. Dalgas’ group in individuals with Expanded Disability Status Scores (EDSS) scores between 6.5 and 8 found that upper body exercise improved VO₂ peak score in five out of six patients. “Even at this later stage of the disease, it seems that people can still have important improvements in health and performance markers,” said Dr. Dalgas.

A review of numerous studies found that exercise had a positive effect on quality of life, and the gains were not affected by baseline disability, disease duration, or exercise type. The study shows that “it’s never too late to improve your life through exercise,” said Dr. Dalgas.
 

Next steps

Challenges remain for the field. “We still need to figure out how long-term adherence is best secured in these patients, and then we really need to look further into how to provide exercise in the best possible way in severe and elderly patients,” said Dr. Dalgas.

During the Q&A session following the presentation, Dr. Dalgas was asked for advice on how to get a patient with MS started with exercise. “We normally recommend that people should find a physical therapist or sports scientist who has expertise in this field to help with getting started. If you start out wrong you can get into problems, so having the right expertise at hand is a good way to start. Then shortly afterward they will be more independent to do the exercise,” said Dr. Dalgas.

Alan Thompson, MD, who moderated the session, brought up the concept of cognitive reserve in MS, which posits that positive life experience builds up the capacity and efficiency of neural networks, which in turn act as a sort of buffer against later cognitive decline due to aging and illness. “Can you build up your exercises in a way that has a meaningful impact in delaying the onset of confirmed disability or progression?” asked Dr. Thompson, professor of clinical neurology and neurorehabilitation at University College London.

Dr. Dalgas said that there are studies that suggest this may be true, with MS diagnoses occurring later in patients who are physically active. “You can interpret that as some kind of delayed onset of the disease.”

For more information, Dr. Dalgas suggested recently published recommendations for exercise in MS patients.

Dr. Dalgas disclosed ties with Biogen Idec, Merck Serono, Sanofi Aventis, Almirall, Novartis, Bayer Schering, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Thompson has no relevant financial disclosures.

Five years out, sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of mortality, complications, and reinterventions than gastric bypass, but there was a higher risk of surgical revision, including conversion to another bariatric surgery, gastrectomy, or anastomotic revision, according to a new analysis.

herjua/Thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has gained rapid popularity, and now represents 60% of all bariatric procedures. It has demonstrated good efficacy and short-term safety, it is easier to perform than laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and it is a safe option for high-risk patients, authors led by Ryan Howard, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in JAMA Surgery.

Still, there are few comparative data on the long-term efficacy of the two procedures. Randomized, controlled trials have conducted long-term follow-up, but their small size has made it difficult to detect differences in rare outcomes. Observational studies are limited by the potential for bias. A novel approach to limiting bias is instrumental variables analysis, which controls for possible confounding using a factor that impacts treatment choice, but not patient outcome, to control for possible confounders. Studies using this approach confirmed the superior safety profile of sleeve gastrectomy in the short term.

The current study’s authors, used that method to examined 5-year outcomes in a Medicare population, in which obesity and its complications are especially frequent. Partly because of that lack of data, the Medical Evidence Development and Coverage Committee has called for more data in older patients and in patients with disabilities.

The researchers analyzed data from 95,405 Medicare claims between 2012 and 2018, using state-level variation in sleeve gastrectomy as the instrumental variable.

At 5 years, sleeve gastrectomy was associated with a lower cumulative frequency of mortality (4.27%; 95% confidence interval, 4.25%-4.30% vs. 5.67%; 95% CI, 5.63%-5.69%]), complications (22.10%; 95% CI, 22.06%-22.13% vs. 29.03%; 95% CI, 28.99%-29.08%), and reintervention (25.23%; 95% CI, 25.19%-25.27% vs. 33.57%; 95% CI, 33.52%-33.63%). At 5 years, surgical revision was more common in the sleeve gastrectomy group (2.91%; 95% CI, 2.90%-2.93% vs. 1.46%; 95% CI, 1.45%-1.47%).

The sleeve gastrectomy group had lower odds of all-cause hospitalization at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86) and 3 years (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98), as well as emergency department use at 1 year (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) and 3 years (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). There was no significant difference between the two groups at 5 years with respect to either outcome.

The effort to understand long-term outcomes of these two procedures has been challenging because follow-up is often incomplete, and because reporting isn’t always standardized, according Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, MPH, and Bestoun Ahmed, MD, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Surgery. They noted that the differences in mortality is a new finding and the difference in surgical revisions confirmed something often seen in clinical practice. “Overall, these novel methods, which creatively balance unmeasured factors, have succeeded in providing important incremental findings about the long-term comparative safety outcomes between bariatric procedures that will be helpful in clinical practice,” the editorial authors wrote.

The complications discussed in the study are also difficult to interpret, according to Ali Aminian, MD, who is a professor of surgery and director of Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. They may be related to the surgery, or they may be complications that accrue as patients age. “So that doesn’t mean those were surgical complications, but [the findings are] in line with the other literature that [gastric sleeve] may be safer than gastric bypass, but in a different cohort of patients,” said Dr. Aminian, who was asked to comment.

“I thought it validated that which many of us in clinical practice see on a day to day basis,” said Shanu Kothari, MD, chair of surgery at Prisma Health, and the current president of American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery. He pointed out that the study was limited by its reliance on administrative claims, which makes it impossible to know the reduction in weight and obesity-related comorbid conditions following the procedures, as well as factors driving individual decisions: A surgeon might offer sleeve to a patient at higher risk of complications, but a gastric bypass to someone with more comorbidities. “What we don’t know is how to interpret this 35,000-foot view of Medicare data to that conversation with the patient sitting right in front of you,” said Dr. Kothari.

The authors similarly cited the “lack of clinical granularity in administrative claims data” among study limitations, as well as how the use of instrumental variables may leave the findings less applicable to patients more strongly indicated for one procedure over the other.

“Longer-term randomized clinical trials and observational studies are warranted to confirm these findings,” the study authors concluded. “Understanding the risk profile of various bariatric operations may further help patients and surgeons make the most appropriate decisions regarding plans of care.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Some study authors and editorialists reported funding from various groups and institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health and the VA Ann Arbor Health System. Dr. Kothari and Dr. Aminian have no relevant financial disclosures.

Five years out, sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of mortality, complications, and reinterventions than gastric bypass, but there was a higher risk of surgical revision, including conversion to another bariatric surgery, gastrectomy, or anastomotic revision, according to a new analysis.

herjua/Thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has gained rapid popularity, and now represents 60% of all bariatric procedures. It has demonstrated good efficacy and short-term safety, it is easier to perform than laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and it is a safe option for high-risk patients, authors led by Ryan Howard, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in JAMA Surgery.

Still, there are few comparative data on the long-term efficacy of the two procedures. Randomized, controlled trials have conducted long-term follow-up, but their small size has made it difficult to detect differences in rare outcomes. Observational studies are limited by the potential for bias. A novel approach to limiting bias is instrumental variables analysis, which controls for possible confounding using a factor that impacts treatment choice, but not patient outcome, to control for possible confounders. Studies using this approach confirmed the superior safety profile of sleeve gastrectomy in the short term.

The current study’s authors, used that method to examined 5-year outcomes in a Medicare population, in which obesity and its complications are especially frequent. Partly because of that lack of data, the Medical Evidence Development and Coverage Committee has called for more data in older patients and in patients with disabilities.

The researchers analyzed data from 95,405 Medicare claims between 2012 and 2018, using state-level variation in sleeve gastrectomy as the instrumental variable.

At 5 years, sleeve gastrectomy was associated with a lower cumulative frequency of mortality (4.27%; 95% confidence interval, 4.25%-4.30% vs. 5.67%; 95% CI, 5.63%-5.69%]), complications (22.10%; 95% CI, 22.06%-22.13% vs. 29.03%; 95% CI, 28.99%-29.08%), and reintervention (25.23%; 95% CI, 25.19%-25.27% vs. 33.57%; 95% CI, 33.52%-33.63%). At 5 years, surgical revision was more common in the sleeve gastrectomy group (2.91%; 95% CI, 2.90%-2.93% vs. 1.46%; 95% CI, 1.45%-1.47%).

The sleeve gastrectomy group had lower odds of all-cause hospitalization at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86) and 3 years (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98), as well as emergency department use at 1 year (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) and 3 years (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). There was no significant difference between the two groups at 5 years with respect to either outcome.

The effort to understand long-term outcomes of these two procedures has been challenging because follow-up is often incomplete, and because reporting isn’t always standardized, according Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, MPH, and Bestoun Ahmed, MD, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Surgery. They noted that the differences in mortality is a new finding and the difference in surgical revisions confirmed something often seen in clinical practice. “Overall, these novel methods, which creatively balance unmeasured factors, have succeeded in providing important incremental findings about the long-term comparative safety outcomes between bariatric procedures that will be helpful in clinical practice,” the editorial authors wrote.

The complications discussed in the study are also difficult to interpret, according to Ali Aminian, MD, who is a professor of surgery and director of Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. They may be related to the surgery, or they may be complications that accrue as patients age. “So that doesn’t mean those were surgical complications, but [the findings are] in line with the other literature that [gastric sleeve] may be safer than gastric bypass, but in a different cohort of patients,” said Dr. Aminian, who was asked to comment.

“I thought it validated that which many of us in clinical practice see on a day to day basis,” said Shanu Kothari, MD, chair of surgery at Prisma Health, and the current president of American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery. He pointed out that the study was limited by its reliance on administrative claims, which makes it impossible to know the reduction in weight and obesity-related comorbid conditions following the procedures, as well as factors driving individual decisions: A surgeon might offer sleeve to a patient at higher risk of complications, but a gastric bypass to someone with more comorbidities. “What we don’t know is how to interpret this 35,000-foot view of Medicare data to that conversation with the patient sitting right in front of you,” said Dr. Kothari.

The authors similarly cited the “lack of clinical granularity in administrative claims data” among study limitations, as well as how the use of instrumental variables may leave the findings less applicable to patients more strongly indicated for one procedure over the other.

“Longer-term randomized clinical trials and observational studies are warranted to confirm these findings,” the study authors concluded. “Understanding the risk profile of various bariatric operations may further help patients and surgeons make the most appropriate decisions regarding plans of care.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Some study authors and editorialists reported funding from various groups and institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health and the VA Ann Arbor Health System. Dr. Kothari and Dr. Aminian have no relevant financial disclosures.

Five years out, sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of mortality, complications, and reinterventions than gastric bypass, but there was a higher risk of surgical revision, including conversion to another bariatric surgery, gastrectomy, or anastomotic revision, according to a new analysis.

herjua/Thinkstock

Sleeve gastrectomy has gained rapid popularity, and now represents 60% of all bariatric procedures. It has demonstrated good efficacy and short-term safety, it is easier to perform than laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and it is a safe option for high-risk patients, authors led by Ryan Howard, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, wrote in JAMA Surgery.

Still, there are few comparative data on the long-term efficacy of the two procedures. Randomized, controlled trials have conducted long-term follow-up, but their small size has made it difficult to detect differences in rare outcomes. Observational studies are limited by the potential for bias. A novel approach to limiting bias is instrumental variables analysis, which controls for possible confounding using a factor that impacts treatment choice, but not patient outcome, to control for possible confounders. Studies using this approach confirmed the superior safety profile of sleeve gastrectomy in the short term.

The current study’s authors, used that method to examined 5-year outcomes in a Medicare population, in which obesity and its complications are especially frequent. Partly because of that lack of data, the Medical Evidence Development and Coverage Committee has called for more data in older patients and in patients with disabilities.

The researchers analyzed data from 95,405 Medicare claims between 2012 and 2018, using state-level variation in sleeve gastrectomy as the instrumental variable.

At 5 years, sleeve gastrectomy was associated with a lower cumulative frequency of mortality (4.27%; 95% confidence interval, 4.25%-4.30% vs. 5.67%; 95% CI, 5.63%-5.69%]), complications (22.10%; 95% CI, 22.06%-22.13% vs. 29.03%; 95% CI, 28.99%-29.08%), and reintervention (25.23%; 95% CI, 25.19%-25.27% vs. 33.57%; 95% CI, 33.52%-33.63%). At 5 years, surgical revision was more common in the sleeve gastrectomy group (2.91%; 95% CI, 2.90%-2.93% vs. 1.46%; 95% CI, 1.45%-1.47%).

The sleeve gastrectomy group had lower odds of all-cause hospitalization at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80-0.86) and 3 years (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98), as well as emergency department use at 1 year (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) and 3 years (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.97). There was no significant difference between the two groups at 5 years with respect to either outcome.

The effort to understand long-term outcomes of these two procedures has been challenging because follow-up is often incomplete, and because reporting isn’t always standardized, according Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, MPH, and Bestoun Ahmed, MD, in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Surgery. They noted that the differences in mortality is a new finding and the difference in surgical revisions confirmed something often seen in clinical practice. “Overall, these novel methods, which creatively balance unmeasured factors, have succeeded in providing important incremental findings about the long-term comparative safety outcomes between bariatric procedures that will be helpful in clinical practice,” the editorial authors wrote.

The complications discussed in the study are also difficult to interpret, according to Ali Aminian, MD, who is a professor of surgery and director of Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at Cleveland Clinic. They may be related to the surgery, or they may be complications that accrue as patients age. “So that doesn’t mean those were surgical complications, but [the findings are] in line with the other literature that [gastric sleeve] may be safer than gastric bypass, but in a different cohort of patients,” said Dr. Aminian, who was asked to comment.

“I thought it validated that which many of us in clinical practice see on a day to day basis,” said Shanu Kothari, MD, chair of surgery at Prisma Health, and the current president of American Society for Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery. He pointed out that the study was limited by its reliance on administrative claims, which makes it impossible to know the reduction in weight and obesity-related comorbid conditions following the procedures, as well as factors driving individual decisions: A surgeon might offer sleeve to a patient at higher risk of complications, but a gastric bypass to someone with more comorbidities. “What we don’t know is how to interpret this 35,000-foot view of Medicare data to that conversation with the patient sitting right in front of you,” said Dr. Kothari.

The authors similarly cited the “lack of clinical granularity in administrative claims data” among study limitations, as well as how the use of instrumental variables may leave the findings less applicable to patients more strongly indicated for one procedure over the other.

“Longer-term randomized clinical trials and observational studies are warranted to confirm these findings,” the study authors concluded. “Understanding the risk profile of various bariatric operations may further help patients and surgeons make the most appropriate decisions regarding plans of care.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Some study authors and editorialists reported funding from various groups and institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health and the VA Ann Arbor Health System. Dr. Kothari and Dr. Aminian have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

Updated milestones for professional development aim to help specialists in gastroenterology and transplant hepatology achieve knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help them establish their own practices.

The new version, Milestones 2.0, represents the latest milestones created by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, including six core competencies developed initially in 1999: Patient care (PC), medical knowledge (MK), interpersonal and communication skills (ICS), professionalism (PROF), systems-based practice (SBP), and practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI).

In 2013, the Oversight Working Network, working with gastroenterology societies, developed a companion document of 13 entrustable professional activities (EPAs) aimed at gastroenterologists: These include management of various individual disorders such as liver or pancreatic diseases, performance of specific diagnostic procedures, and managing patient adverse events and nutritional status.

Milestones 1.0 encountered some resistance from the graduate education community. Too many of the milestones were deemed to be too vague or were described using language that was too complex. Some viewed the milestones as burdensome, and a review suggested hundreds of different ways to describe ICS and PROF, leading to confusion.

In an effort to improve matters, the ACGME made some changes. The first involved standardizing milestones used for ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI so that they could be used across disciplines. They also developed PC and MK milestones tailored to each specialty.

In the latest article on the topic, appearing in Gastroenterology, the authors led by Brijen J. Shah, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, outlined a second group of changes, which included development of specialty-specific milestones aimed at gastroenterology and transplant hepatology.
 

Development

The new set of milestones includes 17 for gastroenterology and 16 for transplant hepatology.

There are four PC milestones, which include taking a history and conducting patient examinations, patient management, and two more related to cognitive and technical components of procedures. The MK milestones include competency in gastrointestinal and liver diseases (MK1) and medical reasoning (MK2). These milestones are different from the internal medicine milestones met by graduating residents. MK1 includes specialty-specific disorders and diagnostic, therapeutic, and pharmacologic options for treatment or prevention. MK2 encompasses differential diagnoses and how cognitive bias can influence decision-making, a new concept introduced in Milestones 2.0.

Because the skills represented in the four other core milestones (ICS, PROF, SBP, and PBLI) are “common across specialties,” the authors drafted subcompetencies for these four areas with “harmonized” language for use by every specialty. These harmonized milestones were then tailored for each specialty. An important change occurred with SBP because transplant hepatology poses unique challenges in this domain. They ultimately split SBP into two, with SBP1 focusing on unique liver transplant regulatory requirements and SBP2 covering organ allocation and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceptions.
 

Public response

The researchers sought out comment on the updated milestones from program directors and coordinators, and published on the ACGME website, and members of the working group also shared it with faculty, fellows, and specialty societies. Overall, 48 respondents assessed “whether the updated milestone provided a realistic measure of knowledge, skills, and behavior; whether it discriminated between different levels of competency; whether the respondent knew how to assess the milestone effectively; and whether the Supplemental Guide was a useful resource in understanding the milestone.” They rated each on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). They could also provide free-text comments.

Respondents agreed that milestones realistically measure progression (mean, 3.49), could distinguish levels of competency (mean, 3.41), could be used accurately (mean, 3.43), and were explained well by the supplemental guide (mean, 3.42). No trends that suggested a need for additional action were found in the free-text comments.
 

Role of milestones

The milestones can be used to develop learning objectives, which in turn can be worked into clinical rotations and learning activities. For instance, the inpatient consult rotation could be used to address the SBP2 (organ allocation/MELD score exemptions), SBP3 (the physician’s role in the health care system), PBLI1 (evidence-based medicine), and some of the PC (patient care) milestones.

The milestones should not be used as an assessment method by supervisors, the authors cautioned, but rather should be used by the Clinical Competency Committee to assess trainees at various time points. The committee may combine milestones with direct observation, chart-simulated recall, multiple evaluations, and other factors to determine a trainee’s progress.

An institution’s program directors can use the milestones to adjust curriculum development and ensure that any gaps are filled. Milestones can be used at multiple times throughout training: When trainees repeat rotations, they can be used to determine year-to-year progress. Trainees who are not progressing adequately may be identified earlier on, then offered supplemental learning opportunities. On the other hand, trainees who exceed expectations may be offered additional opportunities.

Trainees can also use milestones in self-directed learning, though they should work with the program director and clinical faculty to identify gaps in their learning as well as any deficiencies.

The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.