October 15, 2026 2 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: Out of 5,000 colonoscopies, two machine learning models were concordant in detection of colorectal neoplasia in 97.5% of cases. However, the false-positive rate was high with one of the models. NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Two machine learning models demonstrated high accuracy in identifying adenomas and sessile serrated lesions, although more research is needed to determine their long-term performance, according to study results. Data presented at ACG Annual Scientific Meeting showed that while a random forest model exhibited higher sensitivity, it also had a higher false-positive rate. “Accurate reporting of ADR is essential for assessing colonoscopy quality and ultimately improving colorectal cancer prevention,” Vignesh Krishnan Nagesh, MBBS, a hospitalist at Aikens Regional Medical Centers, told Healio regarding his presentation. “Automated approaches may offer an efficient way to facilitate ADR reporting in clinical practice. “However, additional studies are needed before selecting the optimal model for implementation, with consideration of accuracy, cost, time and feasibility of implementation in different practice settings,” he added. Nagesh and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of 5,000 colonoscopy reports between 2023 and 2025 to compare the performance of a random forest model and a large language model (LLM) in automating adenoma detection rate reporting. Both models had been validated, with reported adenoma and serrated lesion detection rates of at least 99%, according to study background. Outcomes included adenoma and serrated lesion classification, overall neoplasia, false positives and omission rates. According to results, both models demonstrated a high degree of concordance, with agreement in 97.5% of cases. Manual review of the remaining discordant cases (n = 123) showed the random forest model missed two of 16 tubular adenomas vs. seven with the LLM. Both models missed four of 47 sessile serrated lesions. However, the random forest model falsely identified 92 of 107 cases with tubular adenoma vs. eight with the LLM. The false positivity rate of sessile serrated lesions was comparable between the models: two of 76 cases with the random forest model vs. one with the LLM. “Among the 2.5% of discordant cases, the random forest model demonstrated higher sensitivity, but this was accompanied by a higher false-positive rate compared with the large language model,” Nagesh said. The researchers observed similar results for seven cases in which both tubular adenomas and sessile serrated lesions were present: The random forest model missed two and the LLM omitted five. The random forest model falsely identified tubular adenomas and sessile serrated lesions in 59 of 67 cases compared with eight false positives from the LLM. Nagesh emphasized that prospective studies across healthcare systems are necessary to assess the models’ generalizability and performance over time. “While the random forest model demonstrated higher sensitivity, this could potentially result in overestimation of ADR if false-positive cases are incorrectly classified as adenomas,” he told Healio. “The large language model also has a higher implementation cost, which should be considered when evaluating its clinical utility. “Further studies are needed to determine whether a single model is sufficient or whether a combination of approaches would provide the most reliable results.” For more information: Vignesh Krishnan Nagesh, MBBS, is a hospitalist at Aikens Regional Medical Centers and a research collaborator with Mayo Clinic Florida. He is a former gastrointestinal neoplasia fellow at Mayo Clinic Rochester. He can be reached at nagesh.vigneshkrishnan@mayo.edu. Published by: Sources/Disclosures Source: Nagesh VK, et al. Comparison of random forest approach machine learning and large language models for automated detection of colorectal neoplasia: A retrospective study of 5,000 colonoscopies. Presented at: ACG Annual Scientific Meeting; Oct. 9-14, 2026; Nashville (hybrid meeting). Disclosures: Nagesh reports no relevant financial disclosures. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures. Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

October 15, 2026 2 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: At week 28, cholestatic pruritus, fatigue and sleep disturbance scores were lower with volixibat than placebo. Safety of the agent appeared similar to that of other IBAT inhibitors. NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and moderate to severe pruritus reported significantly lower cholestatic pruritus and sleep disturbance with volixibat than with placebo, VISTAS trial data showed. Patients who received volixibat (Mirum Pharmaceuticals), an investigational ileal bile acid transporter (IBAT) inhibitor, also had significantly lower serum bile acid levels and reduced fatigue, noted a presenter at ACG Annual Scientific Meeting. “[This trial] is the largest interventional study investigating the efficacy and safety of IBAT inhibition in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and is the first controlled evidence of a potential therapy addressing the cholestatic symptom burden in patients,” Mitchell Shiffman, MD, director of the Liver Institute of Virginia at Bon Secours Mercy Health, said during his presentation. “Volixibat led to a rapid, significant and sustained improvement in cholestatic pruritus while showing a safety profile consistent with IBAT inhibition.” VISTAS study As Healio previously reported, volixibat demonstrated improvements in pruritus and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores for fatigue and sleep compared with placebo among patients with primary biliary cholangitis. However, no pharmacologic therapies are currently available for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Shiffman and colleagues conducted the 28-week phase 2b VISTAS trial to assess the efficacy and safety of volixibat among 111 patients aged at least 12 years with primary sclerosing cholangitis and moderate to severe pruritus. The researchers randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive volixibat 20 mg twice daily (n = 54; mean age, 45.2 years; 53.7% male) or placebo (n = 57; mean age, 44.3 years; 61.4% female). Most patients in both groups had large-duct disease (90.7% and 93%, respectively). Change in pruritus by Adult ItchRo score from baseline to the average of the last 12 weeks of treatment served as the primary endpoint. Key secondary endpoints included change from baseline in serum bile acid levels and PROMIS fatigue and sleep disturbance scores. ‘Rapid and sustained reductions’ At the end of the trial, volixibat significantly improved pruritus compared with placebo (mean change from baseline, 2.72 vs. 1.08; delta = –1.64; P < .0001). The volixibat group also showed greater improvements in fatigue (4.22 vs. 1.89; between-group difference, 2.33) and sleep disturbance (6.47 vs. 0.78; delta = 5.69; P = .0011). “The change in fatigue score was 2.33 points greater with volixibat compared to placebo, although this fell short of significance,” Shiffman told attendees. “However, sleep disturbance improved by a whopping 5.69 points compared to placebo, and this was highly statistically significant.” Volixibat also significantly reduced serum bile acid levels compared with placebo (mean change, –33.7 mol/L vs. 2.1 mol/L; delta = –35.8; P < .0324). Researchers noted that volixibat had safety profile consistent with other IBAT inhibitors. Slightly more patients in the volixibat group experienced any treatment-emergent adverse event (93.5% vs. 84%) and grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events (13% and. 11.1%, respectively). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with volixibat were diarrhea (40.3%), abdominal pain (18.2%), nausea (13%) and vitamin D deficiency (10.4%). One patient in the placebo group died during the study. “The decline in pruritus was rapid, occurring within 2 weeks of starting volixibat, reaching a maximum at about 4 to 5 weeks, and remained constant throughout the duration of the study,” Shiffman said. Published by: Sources/Disclosures Source: Shiffman ML, et al. Efficacy and safety of volixibat, an IBAT inhibitor, in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and moderate-to-severe pruritus: Results of the VISTAS trial. Presented at: ACG Annual Scientific Meeting; Oct. 12-14, 2026; Nashville, Tenn. (hybrid meeting). Disclosures: Shiffman reports research support and/or consulting or speaker fees from 89 Bio, Akero, Altimmune, Atea, Camurus, Exact Sciences, Fujifilm, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Hanmi, Helio Genomics, HepQuant, Intercept, Intra-Sana Laboratories, Inventiva, Ipsen, Madrigal, Mirum Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk and Pliant. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures. Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

English “Enfermedad cardiovascular” es un término que se usa para un grupo de enfermedades que afectan tu corazón y vasos sanguíneos, incluyendo accidentes cerebrovasculares, cardiopatías coronarias, insuficiencias cardiacas, valvulopatías cardiacas,, aterosclerosis (arterias endurecidas), hipertensión y arritmias cardiacas. Si tu profesional clínico piensa que podrías tener una enfermedad cardiovascular, anticipa más pruebas. Afortunadamente, hay muchos tipos de pruebas para diagnósticos cardiacos. Tu profesional clínico solicitará las pruebas en función de tu situación médica específica. Las pruebas son, entre otras: Análisis de sangre Descripción: Un profesional clínico inserta una jeringa en tu vena para remover un monto pequeño de sangre. Lo que evalúa: El colesterol, proteínas tales como la lipoproteína (a) o la troponina, y marcadores inflamatorios tales como la proteína C reactiva. Tu profesional clínico solicitará pruebas específicas en función de tu posible diagnóstico. Se usa para: Evaluar tu riesgo de enfermedades cardiovasculares, con una examinación física y tus antecedentes médicos. Pruebas específicas tales como los niveles de troponina pueden confirmar si tu músculo cardiaco ya tiene daños. Monitoreo de la presión arterial Descripción: Un brazalete que mide tu presión arterial en consultas clínicas. Es posible que tengas que medir tu presión arterial en tu hogar. Lo que evalúa: Cuánta presión pone tu sangre en tus arterias cuando tu corazón bombea sangre. Se usa para: Proporcionar un sistema de alerta temprana de enfermedades cardiacas, incluso cuando no hay síntomas porque la hipertensión puede dañar tu músculo cardiaco y vasos sanguíneos con el tiempo. Otros usos: Durante una emergencia médica, monitorear la presión arterial puede alertar al equipo médico de cambios repentinos de la situación del paciente. Según la Asociación estadounidense del corazón, las categorías de la presión arterial son:Normal: Menos de 120 mm Hg de presión sistólica (el número superior) y menos de 80 mm Hg de presión diastólica (el número inferior)Elevada: De 120 a 129 mm Hg de presión sistólica y menos de 80 mm Hg de presión diastólica Hipertensión de etapa 1: De 130 a 139 mm Hg de presión sistólica o de 80 a 89 mm Hg de presión diastólica Hipertensión de etapa 2: 140 mm Hg o más de presión sistólica o 90 mm Hg o más de presión diastólica Hipertensión grave: 180 mm Hg o más de presión sistólica o 120 mm Hg o más de presión diastólica Radiografía de tórax Descripción: Una radiografía que muestra el corazón, los pulmones y la caja torácica No muestra las estructuras dentro del corazón. Lo que evalúa: Una radiografía torácica muestra el tamaño, la forma y la ubicación del corazón y los pulmones. También aparecerán vasos sanguíneos cercanos en la imagen. Se usa para: Asistir en el diagnóstico de la causa de síntomas tales como dolor de pecho, fiebre, dificultad para respirar o una tos que no sana. Ecocardiografía (ecografía del corazón) Descripción: Una prueba que usa ondas de ultrasonido para obtener imágenes del corazón. El tipo más común se conoce como ecocardiografía transtorácica (ETT), en la cual un profesional clínico pasa la sonda de ultrasonido sobre tu tórax. También se puede hacer una ecocardiografía transesofágica (ETE), en la cual tu profesional clínico pasa la sonda de ultrasonido a través de tu garganta para tener una vista clara de tu corazón o aorta. Lo que evalúa: La estructura de tu corazón y su eficacia, incluyendo su fuerza de bombeo y la salud de las válvulas. Se usa para: Asistir en el diagnóstico de lesiones del músculo cardiaco, valvulopatías o insuficiencias cardiacas. Electrocardiograma (ECG) Descripción: Se adhieren electrodos que están conectados con un electrocardiógrafo a tu cuerpo. Lo que evalúa: Las ondas eléctricas del corazón y con qué velocidad y frecuencia late tu corazón. Cada vez que tu corazón late, emite una onda eléctrica. Esta onda hace que el músculo cardiaco se contraiga, lo cual bombea sangre fuera del corazón. Se usa para: Diagnosticar y monitorear muchos trastornos cardiacos, incluyendo ataques cardiacos, insuficiencias cardiacas, valvulopatías, enfermedades arteriales coronarias y arritmias cardiacas (latidos irregulares del corazón). Otros usos: Puede ser útil para diagnosticar embolias pulmonares, inflamaciones del pericardio o niveles anormales de potasio o calcio en la sangre. Prueba de la mesa basculante Descripción: Una prueba en la cual te acuestas sobre una mesa motorizada especial que cambia de una posición horizontal a un ángulo equivalente a sentarse. Un técnico monitoreará tus signos vitales y síntomas tales como una frecuencia cardiaca lenta, una presión arterial baja, desmayos, mareos o náuseas. Lo que evalúa: Si acumulación local de sangre en las venas causa esos síntomas. Se usa para: Diagnosticar el síndrome de taquicardia postural ortostática (STPO), el síncope neurocardiogénico y trastornos similares. Prueba de esfuerzo Descripción: Una prueba que requiere caminar en una cinta sin fin o montarse en una bicicleta estática en un entorno médico mientras el paciente está conectado a un equipo de monitoreo. Tu profesional clínico también revisará tu presión arterial después de la prueba. Lo que evalúa: La eficacia con la que tu corazón bombea sangre. Se usa para: Diagnosticar cardiopatías coronarias o identificar la causa de síntomas tales como dolor de pecho o dificultad para respirar. Otros usos: También puede ser útil para identificar el riesgo de un ataque cardiaco, la elegibilidad para cirugías o un nivel seguro de ejercicio. Monitor Holter Descripción: Un dispositivo portátil pequeño que registra el ritmo de tu corazón durante 24 a 48 horas. Tu profesional clínico podría solicitar que se use un monitor Holter si has tenido síncopes o mareos o si una ECG no proporcionó suficiente información. Lo que evalúa: El ritmo de tu corazón durante el período de la prueba. Se usa para: Detectar latidos irregulares (arritmias). TC cardiaca Descripción: Radiografías que se toman desde muchos ángulos y que se utilizan para obtener una imagen tridimensional detallada de tu corazón y de los vasos sanguíneos cercanos. Algunos escáneres de alta resolución pueden incluso mostrar tu corazón en movimiento. Lo que evalúa: La anatomía y el funcionamiento de tu corazón, válvulas, vasos sanguíneos y estructuras relacionadas. Se usa para: Diagnosticar o monitorear dolor de pecho, obstrucciones en tus arterias

STAT: For women who are 20 years and older, almost half are living with cardiovascular disease — and some don’t know it. What are the lesser-known risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD)? o Chronic stress can cause inflammation, which can contribute to high blood pressure and lower “good” HDL cholesterol. o Nighttime is when your body repairs itself, and sleep deficits can increase risk for CVD and stroke. o Sleep interruptions from sleep apnea can lead to high blood pressure, belly fat and irregular heartbeats. o Helpful GI bacteria break down certain foods — too much “bad” bacteria in your gut microbiome could mean more byproducts that harm cholesterol and blood vessels. o People who reported social isolation and loneliness saw a 29% increased risk for a heart event and a 32% increased risk for a stroke. o The thyroid gland is a key player in heart and vascular health. Those with thyroid dysfunction can see an increase in CVD — including atrial fibrillation and high cholesterol. o Pregnancy-related cardiovascular complications, like pre-term birth, preeclampsia and hypertension of pregnancy, happen to 1 in 7 women, which can increase lifetime risk for stroke and heart failure. o Menstruation usually begins between ages 10 and 15. For women outside of that range, CVD risk goes up. o Early menopause: Similarly, if your period ended early due to something like surgical removal of the ovaries, heart health can take a hit. Women who start menopause before age 40 have a 40% higher lifetime risk of coronary heart disease. o Cancer therapy: Lifesaving treatments like chemotherapy and radiation can have negative side effects, called cardiotoxicity, which can persist after cancer therapy ends. o Oral health: The jury’s out on whether there’s a direct connection between oral and heart health, but there’s a correlation between people with gum disease and coronary heart disease and high blood pressure — possibly owing to inflammation or harmful bacteria in the gums that gets into blood vessels. The population you’re in can predict CVD risk – Hypertension rates vary by race. In one analysis, 59% of Black adults had hypertension — the rate was under 45% for Hispanic, White and Asian adults. – Unemployed people had an 84% higher risk of a dangerous heart event and nearly 3x the risk of death compared with their employed peers. – Low-income individuals with high blood pressure have a higher risk of mortality than others with high blood pressure. What to do? 1. Ask your clinician to run baseline tests to see how your heart is running. If tests uncover a problem, they may prescribe medication, lifestyle changes or other interventions. 2. If you’re going through cancer, add a cardio-oncologist to your specialist team so you can continue to get treatment and protect your heart.3. Schedule regular dental checkups and brush and floss your teeth regularly. 4. Realize what you can change — and what you can’t. Do little things every day that help your heart. Meet up with friends for a walk and eat a healthy dinner after. This educational resource was created with support from Merck. Source link

Brittany Barreto, Ph.D., is a podcaster, an entrepreneur, and a molecular and human geneticist. (In other words, she’s really smart.) Read her column to learn about what’s happening in the world of technology and innovation in women’s health. October is Menopause Awareness Month. Is perimenopause gaslighting you? You can spend an entire afternoon wondering why you’re suddenly sweating through your shirt, forget the whole thing by dinner, and then sit across from your clinician three weeks later saying, “I don’t know why, but I’ve just been feeling off.” That’s part of what makes this transition so frustrating. Hot flashes can appear out of nowhere. Sleep can unravel. Anxiety may spike. Words that normally roll off your tongue can suddenly feel like they’re hiding behind a locked door. But, unlike a blood pressure reading or a broken bone on an X-ray, many menopause symptoms depend on us noticing them, remembering them and describing them later. What if technology could pay attention when we can’t? Four emerging products are approaching menopause symptoms from very different directions: one measures them, one tricks your temperature-sensing system, one cools your bed before you wake up, and one is listening for patterns in your voice. These tools are consumer wellness products, not FDA-cleared treatments for menopause. Research supporting them also varies widely, so think of them as technology that may complement, not replace, evidence-based menopause care or conversations with your clinician. The information about products and/or services in this column does not constitute any form of endorsement or recommendation by HealthyWomen. Links are provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. This column may occasionally cover companies in which Brittany Barreto is an investor. Source link

October 14, 2026 3 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: Experts say prediction markets could hurt trials’ equipoise and validity. Clinicians should be prepared to answer patients’ questions about probabilities tied to trials on marketplaces. Prediction marketplaces are taking their first steps into the pharmaceutical field — a move that some experts say may threaten the integrity of clinical trials. Prediction markets are platforms where users buy and sell shares on the future outcomes of events across a variety of subjects, like entertainment, sports, politics and technology. Prediction marketplaces like Polymarket could adversely impact trials’ validity and participation. Image: Adobe Stock According to Matthew Vogel, MBA, a professor of health policy at Brown University, and colleagues, online prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are introducing betting on drug development outcomes such as “whether POLARIS-AD, a phase 3 trial of the experimental Alzheimer’s drug AR1001, will meet its primary endpoint.” Kalshi in particular has “contracts on endpoints in large, late-stage trials but is considering broadening its scope to include earlier-phase trials and additional outcomes, such as the number of reported adverse events for a drug,” Vogel and colleagues wrote in a perspective in The New England Journal of Medicine. Prediction marketplaces are seeing rapid growth, generating $50 billion in trading in 2025, according to the authors. “It’s an unknown territory,” Vogel told Healio. “We’ve never had anything like it before.” Concerns about prediction markets Vogel said there is real concern about how prediction markets could affect the processes and results of clinical trials. One worry, of course, is the manipulation of trials in order to profit. The stakes of betting on a clinical trial are much higher than those of football games or daily temperatures, Vogel said, as participants and researchers may influence trial results by changing their behavior based on the odds. “You want to have real equipoise for a clinical trial, and also perceived equipoise,” he said. For example, high or low probabilities early in a trial could affect perceptions of whether a treatment will work, potentially drawing people toward some trials and away from others. The amount of information in a market, which influences the accuracy of probabilities, can play a role as well. “If you have a market that’s trading on good information, where there’s a lot of liquidity, the price is going to be more accurate,” he said. For a clinical trial, Vogel cautioned that people with limited knowledge on the drug or intervention could influence public predictions, which patients may encounter online when deciding whether to join a trial. Thus, clinicians may need to explain to patients why probabilities “shouldn’t be mistaken for an individual patient’s likelihood of having a response to a drug,” Vogel and colleagues wrote. Although accurate probabilities could potentially speed the development of effective drugs “and redirect resources away” from unsuccessful drugs, inaccurate predictions could mislead patients and affect trial participation, adherence, dropouts and crossovers, Vogel said. Prices are not scientific measures Vogel said prediction-market prices reflect what traders are willing to pay based on their knowledge and expectations in the moment. Although these prices can be interpreted as probabilities, “it’s important to understand these are not a scientific measure,” he said. Prediction markets have historically performed well, Vogel added, but their accuracy must be evaluated against other forecasting methods. “These markets will not necessarily be right,” he said. “At best, the strongest claim you can make about them is that they will be more accurate than the next best alternative.” To address concerns about how betting can influence clinical trials, Vogel and colleagues said regulators, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the FDA, could establish a “transparent rulemaking process focused on risks to clinical trial integrity.” “Clinical trial contracts should be reviewed individually by regulators before being traded on betting platforms,” they wrote. “For each trial, platforms could be required to identify all people with access to nonpublic information about the trial and prevent them from trading.” The authors also recommended restricting betting on small trials, “in which trading could more readily influence trial-related conduct or outcomes.” “In addition, contracts shouldn’t be tied to measures that are easy to manipulate,” they wrote. “For example, Kalshi’s proposal to allow users to bet on whether a certain number of drug-specific reports are made to the FDA’s Adverse Event Monitoring System is problematic, since anyone can submit such a report.” For more information: Matthew Vogel, MBA, can be reached at primarycare@healio.com. Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

October 14, 2026 2 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: Rural gastroenterologists performed more general endoscopies but fewer advanced procedures than their urban counterparts. Stagnant rural GI workforce growth threatens to widen gaps in advanced procedure access. NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Gastroenterologists in rural areas performed 37% more general endoscopies per physician than their urban peers, but 14% fewer advanced procedures, according to a study presented at ACG Annual Scientific Meeting. Despite performing more endoscopic procedures per physician, rural gastroenterologists saw workforce growth stagnate over 11 years, rising just 8% compared with 18% growth in the urban gastroenterologist workforce. “These findings suggest that workforce planning should consider not only how many gastroenterologists we have, but also where they practice and what procedural expertise is available in those communities,” Priya Kumari Maheshwari, MD, an incoming hospitalist at HCA Florida Capital Hospital, told Healio. Approximately 20% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, but only 7.7% of gastroenterologists practice there, according to study background. Although prior research has shown geographic disparities in GI workforce, less is known about how these gaps affect procedural workloads per physician and whether the burden varies by endoscopic procedure type. To investigate, Maheshwari and colleagues analyzed longitudinal trends in general and advanced endoscopic procedures per gastroenterologist, comparing rural and urban practices. The researchers used data from CMS and the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System to analyze gastroenterologists’ procedural volumes by provider ZIP codes across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., from 2013 to 2024. The analysis included 143,670 total gastroenterologist-year observations. Primary outcomes included procedural volume, gastroenterologist workforce distribution, advanced procedures and geographic variation. In 2024, rural gastroenterologists performed 37% more general endoscopic procedures per physician than their urban counterparts (308 vs. 225). “However, we saw the opposite pattern with advanced endoscopy,” Maheshwari told Healio. “Urban gastroenterologists performed approximately 75 advanced procedures per physician compared with approximately 66 in rural practice — about 14% more. Advanced procedures also accounted for 4.1% of urban endoscopic volume compared with 2.2% of rural volume in 2024.” The researchers acknowledged that the study was limited to Medicare fee-for-service data and did not capture procedures performed for patients with private insurance or other coverage, potentially limiting the findings’ generalizability. From 2013 to 2024, the total U.S. gastroenterologist workforce grew from 11,954 to 13,936. However, during that time, the rural proportion of the workforce declined from 5.5% to 4.6%. “These findings highlight the importance of targeted rural workforce planning and recruitment as well as potentially expanding advanced endoscopy training opportunities in underserved areas,” Maheshwari told Healio. “Supporting rural gastroenterologists and expanding training opportunities in underserved areas may be an important step toward improving geographic access to both general and advanced procedures.” For more information: Priya Kumari Maheshwari, MD, can be reached at priyakmaheshwari@outlook.com. Published by: Sources/Disclosures Source: Maheshwari PK, et al. Disparities in general and advanced endoscopic procedures between rural and urban gastroenterologists in the United States. Presented at: ACG Annual Scientific Meeting; Oct. 9-14, 2026; Nashville, Tenn. (hybrid meeting). Disclosures: Maheshwari reports no relevant financial disclosures. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures. Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Source link

October 14, 2026 4 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: At week 12, clinical remission and endoscopic response rates were higher with risankizumab than placebo. Remission and response rates also were numerically higher at week 24. NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Patients with Crohn’s disease achieved significantly higher clinical remission and endoscopic response rates at week 12 with subcutaneous risankizumab induction than with placebo, study results showed. In addition, subcutaneous risankizumab (Skyrizi, AbbVie) induction demonstrated a similar safety profile to other indications for the drug, according to a speaker at ACG Annual Scientific Meeting. Millie D. Long, MD, MPH, FACG, speaks at the podium during ACG Annual Scientific Meeting. Photo by: Octavia Feliciano. “One of the things that we as gastroenterologists want to do is use the safest, most effective therapy to hopefully treat [inflammatory bowel disease] early, achieve mucosal healing and prevent need for surgery or other complications in our patients,” Millie D. Long, MD, MPH, FACG, professor of medicine and vice chief of education at University of North Carolina School of Medicine, told Healio regarding her presentation. “One of the things we have learned with this class of medicines — the [interleukin]-23 p19 agents — is they seem to be incredibly safe for advanced therapies and highly effective. “It’s a very nice combination when you compare it to some of our older biologic therapies, where we have seen some specific safety signals,” she added. AFFIRM study The FDA approved risankizumab in 2022 for the treatment of moderately to severely active CD, with a dosing regimen of IV induction followed by subcutaneous maintenance. However, accessing the required induction can be a barrier for some individuals, according to Long. “I practice in North Carolina, where I see patients from a five-state radius,” she said. “Arranging infusions at remote sites and prescribing across state borders can be a challenge.” Long and colleagues conducted the phase 3 AFFIRM study to investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous risankizumab induction. They enrolled 289 adults with moderate to severe CD, all of whom had a confirmed diagnosis for at least 3 months prior to enrollment and Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores ranging from 220 to 450 at baseline. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive subcutaneous risankizumab (n = 191; mean age, 39.8 years; 42.9% women; mean CDAI, 310.9) or placebo (n = 98; mean age, 38.4 years; 42.9% women; mean CDAI, 317.5). All participants demonstrated prior intolerance or inadequate response to conventional CD therapies. About a third of patients in the treatment and placebo groups had received advanced therapy (35.1% and 33.7%, respectively), and nearly two-thirds had inadequate response to advanced therapy (64.9% and 66.3%). Participants received a 720 mg induction dose of risankizumab, followed by 720 mg doses at weeks 2, 4 and 8. Those who achieved clinical response at week 12 continued blinded treatment, with maintenance doses administered at weeks 12 and 20. Clinical remission and endoscopic response at week 12, measured by CDAI score, served as primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included clinical remission and endoscopic response at week 24, as well as endoscopic remission and ulcer-free endoscopy at both time points. ‘Higher than we’ve seen’ At week 12, risankizumab outperformed placebo in clinical remission (55% vs. 29.6%; delta = 26.6; 95% CI, 15.6-37.6) and endoscopic response (44% vs. 14.3%; delta = 29.4; 95% CI, 19.9-38.9). Rates of endoscopic remission (27.7% vs. 10.2%; delta = 17.1; 95% CI, 8.8-25.4) and ulcer-free endoscopy achievement rates (26.2% vs. 10.2%; delta = 15.9; 95% CI, 7.7-24) also were higher in the treatment group. Similar results were reported among patients who had not received prior advanced therapy (clinical remission, 73.1% vs. 27.3%; endoscopic response, 61.2% vs. 15.2%) and those who were intolerant or had inadequate response to other biologic therapies (clinical remission, 45.2% vs. 30.8%; endoscopic response, 34.7% vs. 13.8%). “The numeric values are higher than we’ve seen — particularly for the advanced therapy-naive patients — helping us to understand that this drug may be a very appropriate first-line choice for patients with Crohn’s disease,” Long said. A total of 134 patients in the risankizumab group and 44 in the placebo group continued therapy through week 24. At week 24, the treatment group achieved numerically higher rates of clinical remission (67.2% vs. 29.6%), endoscopic response (57.5% vs 11.4%), endoscopic remission (35.8% vs. 9.1%) and ulcer-free endoscopy (36.6% vs 9.1%) than the placebo group. Incidence and severity of treatment-related adverse events were comparable with the established safety profile of risankizumab. Similar rates of adverse events were reported in treatment and placebo groups for the duration of the study. Long anticipates that she and colleagues will present the AFFIRM study’s period B results early next year. “In this presentation, we’re sharing the responder data, but because of the period B study design, individuals who didn’t respond in the first 12 weeks were essentially given another induction,” she said. Long also expressed interest in research exploring subcutaneous risankizumab in subpopulations of patients with IBD, including those with shorter CD duration. “Typically, we think the longer you have Crohn’s disease, the harder it is to treat and to achieve mucosal healing,” Long told Healio. “I think the fact that this was a refractory population in terms of numbers of drugs, as well as data in terms of number of years of disease, that we’re still seeing such high efficacy speaks volumes about the therapy and about this subcutaneous load.” For more information: Millie D. Long, MD, MPH, FACG, is professor of medicine, vice chief of education and director of the gastroenterology and hepatology fellowship program at University of North Carolina School of Medicine. She

October 14, 2026 3 min read Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact customerservice@slackinc.com. Back to Healio Key takeaways: DNA methylation test detected Barrett’s esophagus with 90% sensitivity and 86% specificity, rising to 99% for long-segment disease. The test reached 100% sensitivity for dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma. NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A novel DNA methylation test using the EndoSign capsule-sponge detected Barrett’s esophagus with 90% sensitivity and 86% specificity, excelling in longer segments and patients with dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. Late-breaking clinical trial data presented at ACG Annual Scientific Meeting suggest that this minimally invasive approach with Cyted Health’s biomarker test could expand screening for at-risk individuals and help reduce esophageal adenocarcinoma mortality through earlier detection. Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, MACG, speaks at the podium during ACG Annual Scientific Meeting. Photo by: Robert Stott. “Ninety percent of patients with Barrett’s esophagus are undiagnosed right now,” Marcel Gehrung, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Cyted Health, told Healio. “In the U.S., we have around 30 to 32 million people that — according to the ACG guideline — have risk factors that might make them eligible for endoscopic or non-endoscopic screening. With 90% being undiagnosed, we have to ask ourselves: Are we scoping the right patients at the right time to pick up those patients with Barrett’s esophagus who are at increased risk for developing esophageal adenocarcinoma?” In the DETECT-ME trial, Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, MACG, senior associate dean for clinical research at University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and colleagues prospectively evaluated the accuracy, safety and tolerability of the DNA methylation biomarker panel paired with the EndoSign device. The multicenter study enrolled 324 patients across 18 sites, including individuals undergoing screening due to elevated risk and patients with an established diagnosis of BE undergoing surveillance or endoscopic eradication treatment. Shaheen and colleagues analyzed DNA methylation in EndoSign samples collected before esophagogastroduodenoscopy, examining 654 BE-associated regions and 1,561 reference regions to establish baseline methylation levels. The researchers used the Mann–Whitney rank-sum test to compare methylation in BE-associated and reference regions, with higher scores signaling a stronger likelihood for BE. Test sensitivity and specificity for BE served as primary endpoints, alongside tolerability, safety and sensitivity by dysplasia grade and BE length. Of the 324 participants in the primary analysis, 181 had BE and 143 did not. The test identified 163 of 181 patients with BE, corresponding to a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI, 84%-94%). Among patients without BE, 123 of 143 tested negative, yielding a specificity of 86% (95% CI, 79%-91%). The test also demonstrated 100% sensitivity for dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma, with sensitivity for BE increasing with segment length. The researchers reported a sensitivity of 82% for short-segment BE (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 99% for long-segment BE (95% CI, 94%-100%), with an 87% sensitivity for nondysplastic BE. Detection improved significantly with each 1 cm increase in BE segment length (OR = 3.68; 95% CI, 1.56-8.68). Sensitivity was found to be lower in the high-risk screening group than in patients with previously diagnosed BE (69% vs. 92%), a difference consistent with the shorter BE segments in the screening group. “With 100% sensitivity for dysplasia and neoplasia, this is a test that has an exceptional negative predictive value, which really means you can trust a negative result, while at the same time having a massively increased yield in endoscopy in the patients who have tested positive,” Gehrung told Healio. Additionally, Shaheen and colleagues reported that sampling was successful in 95% of participants, with no reported device-related adverse events. The test was also well tolerated, with 82% of participants rating its tolerability as excellent and 81% noting they would undergo the test again. “Perhaps next year, or even before that, we are hopeful that, because we’re using a very extensive biomarker panel, not only will we be able to [determine] Barrett’s yes/no, but we will actually be able to differentiate the degree of dysplasia,” Shaheen told attendees. “Not ready for prime time yet but stay tuned.” Shaheen also noted that rather than viewing this technology as a threat to their existing endoscopy practice, gastroenterologists should be leading its adoption. “Ultimately, we hope this will become a primary care test, and as such, we should be embracing this,” Shaheen said. “This is actually going to increase our business — if we do it right — because 90% of these patients aren’t getting screened anyway. You are going to be doing more endoscopy, but you’re going to be doing endoscopy for patients who are high risk and have already had a positive test. So, we should be leading the charge here.” For more information: Marcel Gehrung, PhD, can be reached at gastroenterology@healio.com. Published by: Sources/Disclosures Source: Shaheen NJ, et al. A prospective, multicenter cohort study of a novel methylation biomarker panel using non-endoscopic cell collection to detect Barrett’s esophagus – The DETECT-ME study. Presented at: ACG Annual Scientific Meeting; Oct 12-14, 2026; Nashville, Tenn. (hybrid meeting). Disclosures: Gehrung reports consulting/advisory relationships, employment, leadership and ownership interests with Cyted Health and Medtronic. Please see the study for all other authors’ relevant financial disclosures. Ask a clinical question and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge base. PubMed, enrolling/recruiting trials, guidelines Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data Learn more Add topic to email alerts Receive an email when new articles are posted on Please provide your email address to receive an email when new articles are posted on . “ data-action=”subscribe”> Subscribe We were unable to process your request. Please try again later. If you continue to have this issue please contact

Una lectura de la presión arterial tiene un número superior y uno inferior que miden la presión en tus arterias. El número superior (presión sistólica): Mide la presión en las arterias cuando tu corazón late El número inferior (presión diastólica): Mide la presión en las arterias entre latidos Las lecturas de la presión arterial se clasifican en cuatro categorías: normal, elevada, hipertensión de etapa 1 o hipertensión de etapa 2, dependiendo de los números específicos. Si tus números superior e inferior se clasifican en dos categorías diferentes, tu presión arterial correcta es la categoría superior. Según la Asociación estadounidense del corazón, las categorías de presión arterial son: Normal: Menos de 120 mm Hg de presión sistólica (el número superior) y menos de 80 mm Hg de presión diastólica (el número inferior)Elevada: De 120 a 129 mm Hg de presión sistólica y menos de 80 mm Hg de presión diastólicaHipertensión de etapa 1: De 130 a 139 mm Hg de presión sistólica o de 80 a 89 mm Hg de presión diastólicaHipertensión de etapa 2: 140 mm Hg o más de presión sistólica o 90 mm Hg o más de presión diastólica Nota: Cualquier lectura de la presión arterial por encima de 180 mm Hg de presión sistólica o 120 mm Hg de presión diastólica sin síntomas es una hipertensión grave y debes comunicarte con tu profesional clínico. Con síntomas, estos números se consideran una emergencia médica y se requiere una llamada al 911. Source link