Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-agonists reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with inhalers with corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists, based on data from more than 30,000 individuals.

Current clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients recommend inhalers with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) over those with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs, but data comparing the two formulations have been inconsistent, and concerns about generalizability persist, wrote William B. Feldman, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the researchers reviewed data from a commercial insurance claims database of individuals diagnosed with COPD who filled a new prescription for a LAMA-LABA inhaler or ICS-LABA inhaler between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019. Patients with asthma and those younger than 40 years were excluded. The study population included 137,833 individuals with a mean age of 70.2 years; 50.4% were female. Of the 107,004 ICS-LABA users and 30,829 LAMA-LABA users, 30,216 matched pairs were included in a 1:1 propensity score matched study. The primary outcomes were effectiveness, based on the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and safety, based on the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization.

Use of LAMA-LABA inhalers was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization compared with use of ICS-LABA (hazard ratios 0.92 and 0.80, respectively). The absolute rate reductions with LAMA-LABA inhalers for first moderate or severe COPD exacerbations and for first pneumonia hospitalizations were was 43.0 events per 1,000 person-years and 91.8 events per person-years, respectively.

The overall rates of total moderate to severe COPD and pneumonia hospitalizations were 5% and 17% lower, respectively, among patients who used LAMA-LABA than those treated with ICS-LABA. The results were consistently robust in subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, the results must be interpreted cautiously in comparison to other large studies because of the significant differences in the cohorts of patients studied, notably that most patients in the current study had no received previous inhaler therapy.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively short follow-up time and reliance on prescription fills as an indicator of medication use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included notable differences between the LAMA-LABA patients and ICS-LABA patients, such as more severe COPD and less access to respiratory care, they wrote.

Although the current study is not the definitive answer to conflicting results from previous trials, it is the largest know to date to compare LAMA-LABA with ICS-LABA, and the results support LAMA-LABA as the preferred therapy for COPD patients, the researchers concluded.
 

Findings clarify clinical practice guidelines

“This study was required to provide clarity regarding the optimal choice of treatment for COPD given conflicting data from other recent trials,” Suman Pal, MBBS, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview.

“The study findings reinforce the benefits of combined LAMA-LABA in improving clinical outcomes in COPD in a real-world setting,” and the data provide further support for choosing LAMA-LABA over ICS-LABA in COPD patients, said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the study.

However, availability and affordability of LAMA-LABA inhalers may be barriers to expanding their use in clinical practice, he noted.

“Additional research is needed to accurately define which patient populations would benefit most from the therapy and whether patients who have previously been stabilized on ICS-LABA would derive additional benefit from a change in therapy,” Dr. Pal said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and funding from the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures.

Dr. Feldman disclosed receiving personal fees from Alosa Health and Aetion, serving as an expert witness in litigation against inhaler manufacturers, and receiving an honorarium for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts unrelated to the current study. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

People who experience chronic pain and tiredness from fibromyalgia have an increased risk for all-cause mortality, a new analysis of evidence says.

The condition can lead people to be vulnerable to accidents, infections, and even suicide, according to the report published in RMD Open.

The researchers suggest that care providers monitor physical and mental health to lower the dangers.

People with fibromyalgia often have other health issues, including rheumatic, gut, neurological, and mental health disorders, according to The BMJ. More and more people are being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The cause of the illness remains unclear.

The researchers looked at eight studies published between 1999 and 2020 and pooled results from six of them. The studies involved a total of 188,000 adults.

The analysis of the data revealed that fibromyalgia was linked to a 27% greater risk of death from all causes.

Those with fibromyalgia were at a 44% greater risk of infections, including pneumonia. Their suicide risk was more than three times higher.

The greater risk of all-cause death could result from fatigue, poor sleep, and concentration problems, The BMJ said.

The patients had a 12% lower risk of dying from cancer, the analysis found. This could be because they tend to make more visits to health care professionals, the authors suggest.

“Fibromyalgia is often called an ‘imaginary condition,’ with ongoing debates on the legitimacy and clinical usefulness of this diagnosis. Our review provides further proof that fibromyalgia patients should be taken seriously, with particular focus on screening for suicidal ideation, prevention of accidents, and prevention and treatment of infections,” the researchers say.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People who experience chronic pain and tiredness from fibromyalgia have an increased risk for all-cause mortality, a new analysis of evidence says.

The condition can lead people to be vulnerable to accidents, infections, and even suicide, according to the report published in RMD Open.

The researchers suggest that care providers monitor physical and mental health to lower the dangers.

People with fibromyalgia often have other health issues, including rheumatic, gut, neurological, and mental health disorders, according to The BMJ. More and more people are being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The cause of the illness remains unclear.

The researchers looked at eight studies published between 1999 and 2020 and pooled results from six of them. The studies involved a total of 188,000 adults.

The analysis of the data revealed that fibromyalgia was linked to a 27% greater risk of death from all causes.

Those with fibromyalgia were at a 44% greater risk of infections, including pneumonia. Their suicide risk was more than three times higher.

The greater risk of all-cause death could result from fatigue, poor sleep, and concentration problems, The BMJ said.

The patients had a 12% lower risk of dying from cancer, the analysis found. This could be because they tend to make more visits to health care professionals, the authors suggest.

“Fibromyalgia is often called an ‘imaginary condition,’ with ongoing debates on the legitimacy and clinical usefulness of this diagnosis. Our review provides further proof that fibromyalgia patients should be taken seriously, with particular focus on screening for suicidal ideation, prevention of accidents, and prevention and treatment of infections,” the researchers say.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

People who experience chronic pain and tiredness from fibromyalgia have an increased risk for all-cause mortality, a new analysis of evidence says.

The condition can lead people to be vulnerable to accidents, infections, and even suicide, according to the report published in RMD Open.

The researchers suggest that care providers monitor physical and mental health to lower the dangers.

People with fibromyalgia often have other health issues, including rheumatic, gut, neurological, and mental health disorders, according to The BMJ. More and more people are being diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The cause of the illness remains unclear.

The researchers looked at eight studies published between 1999 and 2020 and pooled results from six of them. The studies involved a total of 188,000 adults.

The analysis of the data revealed that fibromyalgia was linked to a 27% greater risk of death from all causes.

Those with fibromyalgia were at a 44% greater risk of infections, including pneumonia. Their suicide risk was more than three times higher.

The greater risk of all-cause death could result from fatigue, poor sleep, and concentration problems, The BMJ said.

The patients had a 12% lower risk of dying from cancer, the analysis found. This could be because they tend to make more visits to health care professionals, the authors suggest.

“Fibromyalgia is often called an ‘imaginary condition,’ with ongoing debates on the legitimacy and clinical usefulness of this diagnosis. Our review provides further proof that fibromyalgia patients should be taken seriously, with particular focus on screening for suicidal ideation, prevention of accidents, and prevention and treatment of infections,” the researchers say.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Measured one way, success for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in the femoropopliteal arteries for patients with intermittent claudication has improved, as the need for repeat PVI appears to be very low, and lower than in recent years, a new analysis suggests. But measured another way, the researchers said, PVI’s record of success in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains marred by a substantial risk for amputation involving the treated limb.

In their analysis, the “persistent and not insignificant risk” of treated-limb amputation in such patients who underwent femoropopliteal PVI was 4.3% over 4 years. The rate for popliteal interventions was significantly higher than for PVI limited to the superficial femoral artery (SFA), 7.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

The 4-year rate of repeat target-vessel revascularization, however, was “lower than expected” at 15.2% in the analysis, which was based on the PINC AI Healthcare Data database covering over 1,100 U.S. hospitals. The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The amputation rates for index treated limbs “surprised us,” lead author S. Elissa Altin, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. The increased rate after procedures limited to the popliteal artery, compared with the SFA, “were even more concerning,” she said. “This is higher than accepted natural history rates of amputation in patients with conservatively managed claudication.”

Of particular concern in the study, agreed the author of an accompanying editorial, “is the finding of a 1 in 25 risk for amputation among patients with [intermittent claudication] undergoing revascularization, which underscores that both patients and physicians must ensure that evidence-based lifestyle and medical therapies are exhausted prior to pursuing [femoropopliteal] revascularization.”

Given such amputation concerns “and the availability of effective lifestyle and medical therapies,” wrote Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, “PVI should be restricted in stable PAD only for those with persistent lifestyle-limiting claudication despite [guideline-directed medical therapy] and structured exercise therapy.”

Dr. Altin and colleagues analyzed data from 19,324 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age, 69 years; 59% men) who underwent femoropopliteal PVI from 2016 to 2020.

Use of atherectomy and of drug-eluting balloons were both similarly prevalent for popliteal and SFA target arteries; however, SFA lesions were more commonly treated with stents.

The rate of amputation in the treated limb over 4 years was 4.3%; the rate of major (above the ankle) amputation was 3.2%.

The multivariable-adjusted treated-limb amputation hazard ratio for popliteal versus SFA procedures was for 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.92) for any amputation and 1.98 (95% CI, 1.32-2.95) for major amputation.

The 4-year rate of index-limb repeat revascularization was 16.7% overall, 20.1% for patients with an index procedure in both the popliteal and SFA segments, 19% after popliteal-only procedures, and 15.4% after SFA-only procedures (P < .0001), the report stated.

The overall lower-than-expected revascularization rates, the authors proposed, may reflect improvements in endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal lesions, such as drug-eluting stents and advances in medical therapy.

“Additionally, this may underscore a difference between trial-defined target-lesion revascularization compared with clinically driven target-lesion revascularization in practice,” they wrote.

The study’s revascularization rates could have been underestimated because “some of the patients in this study may have had procedures conducted in other hospital systems or at an office-based lab during the study period,” proposed interventional cardiologist Seyi Bolorunduro MD, MPH, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

“This and other studies highlight the need to be cautious about offering PVI to patients with intermittent claudication,” said Dr. Bolorunduro, who was not connected with the current study. On the other hand, he added, randomized trial data show “that combination therapy with PVI followed by supervised exercise results in greater improvement in walking distances and quality-of-life scores, compared with supervised exercise alone, at 1 year.’

Femoropopliteal PVI “is an important tool for patients with residual, truly lifestyle-limiting claudication after exhausting medical therapies, complete smoking cessation, and structured exercise programs,” Dr. Altin said. Future studies, she added, should look prospectively at patients with claudication who underwent early versus delayed invasive management.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee said that, for patients with PAD and claudication, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be recommended if LDL cholesterol remains 70 mg/dL or higher and symptoms persist after a regimen of lifestyle modification, exercise, antiplatelet therapy, and high-intensity statins and other guideline-directed medical therapy. He also suggests a direct oral anticoagulant be considered before resorting to endovascular or surgical revascularization.

“We need to optimize risk-factor modification, medical therapy and exercise, and only reserve PVI for patients with severe lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication who have tried and failed everything else,” Dr. Bolorunduro agreed in an interview. “I educate my patients about [the amputation] risk and let them know that PVI is not a panacea.”

Dr. Altin has disclosed no relevant relationships. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Bolorunduro have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measured one way, success for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in the femoropopliteal arteries for patients with intermittent claudication has improved, as the need for repeat PVI appears to be very low, and lower than in recent years, a new analysis suggests. But measured another way, the researchers said, PVI’s record of success in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains marred by a substantial risk for amputation involving the treated limb.

In their analysis, the “persistent and not insignificant risk” of treated-limb amputation in such patients who underwent femoropopliteal PVI was 4.3% over 4 years. The rate for popliteal interventions was significantly higher than for PVI limited to the superficial femoral artery (SFA), 7.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

The 4-year rate of repeat target-vessel revascularization, however, was “lower than expected” at 15.2% in the analysis, which was based on the PINC AI Healthcare Data database covering over 1,100 U.S. hospitals. The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The amputation rates for index treated limbs “surprised us,” lead author S. Elissa Altin, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. The increased rate after procedures limited to the popliteal artery, compared with the SFA, “were even more concerning,” she said. “This is higher than accepted natural history rates of amputation in patients with conservatively managed claudication.”

Of particular concern in the study, agreed the author of an accompanying editorial, “is the finding of a 1 in 25 risk for amputation among patients with [intermittent claudication] undergoing revascularization, which underscores that both patients and physicians must ensure that evidence-based lifestyle and medical therapies are exhausted prior to pursuing [femoropopliteal] revascularization.”

Given such amputation concerns “and the availability of effective lifestyle and medical therapies,” wrote Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, “PVI should be restricted in stable PAD only for those with persistent lifestyle-limiting claudication despite [guideline-directed medical therapy] and structured exercise therapy.”

Dr. Altin and colleagues analyzed data from 19,324 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age, 69 years; 59% men) who underwent femoropopliteal PVI from 2016 to 2020.

Use of atherectomy and of drug-eluting balloons were both similarly prevalent for popliteal and SFA target arteries; however, SFA lesions were more commonly treated with stents.

The rate of amputation in the treated limb over 4 years was 4.3%; the rate of major (above the ankle) amputation was 3.2%.

The multivariable-adjusted treated-limb amputation hazard ratio for popliteal versus SFA procedures was for 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.92) for any amputation and 1.98 (95% CI, 1.32-2.95) for major amputation.

The 4-year rate of index-limb repeat revascularization was 16.7% overall, 20.1% for patients with an index procedure in both the popliteal and SFA segments, 19% after popliteal-only procedures, and 15.4% after SFA-only procedures (P < .0001), the report stated.

The overall lower-than-expected revascularization rates, the authors proposed, may reflect improvements in endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal lesions, such as drug-eluting stents and advances in medical therapy.

“Additionally, this may underscore a difference between trial-defined target-lesion revascularization compared with clinically driven target-lesion revascularization in practice,” they wrote.

The study’s revascularization rates could have been underestimated because “some of the patients in this study may have had procedures conducted in other hospital systems or at an office-based lab during the study period,” proposed interventional cardiologist Seyi Bolorunduro MD, MPH, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

“This and other studies highlight the need to be cautious about offering PVI to patients with intermittent claudication,” said Dr. Bolorunduro, who was not connected with the current study. On the other hand, he added, randomized trial data show “that combination therapy with PVI followed by supervised exercise results in greater improvement in walking distances and quality-of-life scores, compared with supervised exercise alone, at 1 year.’

Femoropopliteal PVI “is an important tool for patients with residual, truly lifestyle-limiting claudication after exhausting medical therapies, complete smoking cessation, and structured exercise programs,” Dr. Altin said. Future studies, she added, should look prospectively at patients with claudication who underwent early versus delayed invasive management.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee said that, for patients with PAD and claudication, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be recommended if LDL cholesterol remains 70 mg/dL or higher and symptoms persist after a regimen of lifestyle modification, exercise, antiplatelet therapy, and high-intensity statins and other guideline-directed medical therapy. He also suggests a direct oral anticoagulant be considered before resorting to endovascular or surgical revascularization.

“We need to optimize risk-factor modification, medical therapy and exercise, and only reserve PVI for patients with severe lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication who have tried and failed everything else,” Dr. Bolorunduro agreed in an interview. “I educate my patients about [the amputation] risk and let them know that PVI is not a panacea.”

Dr. Altin has disclosed no relevant relationships. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Bolorunduro have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Measured one way, success for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in the femoropopliteal arteries for patients with intermittent claudication has improved, as the need for repeat PVI appears to be very low, and lower than in recent years, a new analysis suggests. But measured another way, the researchers said, PVI’s record of success in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains marred by a substantial risk for amputation involving the treated limb.

In their analysis, the “persistent and not insignificant risk” of treated-limb amputation in such patients who underwent femoropopliteal PVI was 4.3% over 4 years. The rate for popliteal interventions was significantly higher than for PVI limited to the superficial femoral artery (SFA), 7.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

The 4-year rate of repeat target-vessel revascularization, however, was “lower than expected” at 15.2% in the analysis, which was based on the PINC AI Healthcare Data database covering over 1,100 U.S. hospitals. The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The amputation rates for index treated limbs “surprised us,” lead author S. Elissa Altin, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. The increased rate after procedures limited to the popliteal artery, compared with the SFA, “were even more concerning,” she said. “This is higher than accepted natural history rates of amputation in patients with conservatively managed claudication.”

Of particular concern in the study, agreed the author of an accompanying editorial, “is the finding of a 1 in 25 risk for amputation among patients with [intermittent claudication] undergoing revascularization, which underscores that both patients and physicians must ensure that evidence-based lifestyle and medical therapies are exhausted prior to pursuing [femoropopliteal] revascularization.”

Given such amputation concerns “and the availability of effective lifestyle and medical therapies,” wrote Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, “PVI should be restricted in stable PAD only for those with persistent lifestyle-limiting claudication despite [guideline-directed medical therapy] and structured exercise therapy.”

Dr. Altin and colleagues analyzed data from 19,324 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age, 69 years; 59% men) who underwent femoropopliteal PVI from 2016 to 2020.

Use of atherectomy and of drug-eluting balloons were both similarly prevalent for popliteal and SFA target arteries; however, SFA lesions were more commonly treated with stents.

The rate of amputation in the treated limb over 4 years was 4.3%; the rate of major (above the ankle) amputation was 3.2%.

The multivariable-adjusted treated-limb amputation hazard ratio for popliteal versus SFA procedures was for 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.92) for any amputation and 1.98 (95% CI, 1.32-2.95) for major amputation.

The 4-year rate of index-limb repeat revascularization was 16.7% overall, 20.1% for patients with an index procedure in both the popliteal and SFA segments, 19% after popliteal-only procedures, and 15.4% after SFA-only procedures (P < .0001), the report stated.

The overall lower-than-expected revascularization rates, the authors proposed, may reflect improvements in endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal lesions, such as drug-eluting stents and advances in medical therapy.

“Additionally, this may underscore a difference between trial-defined target-lesion revascularization compared with clinically driven target-lesion revascularization in practice,” they wrote.

The study’s revascularization rates could have been underestimated because “some of the patients in this study may have had procedures conducted in other hospital systems or at an office-based lab during the study period,” proposed interventional cardiologist Seyi Bolorunduro MD, MPH, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

“This and other studies highlight the need to be cautious about offering PVI to patients with intermittent claudication,” said Dr. Bolorunduro, who was not connected with the current study. On the other hand, he added, randomized trial data show “that combination therapy with PVI followed by supervised exercise results in greater improvement in walking distances and quality-of-life scores, compared with supervised exercise alone, at 1 year.’

Femoropopliteal PVI “is an important tool for patients with residual, truly lifestyle-limiting claudication after exhausting medical therapies, complete smoking cessation, and structured exercise programs,” Dr. Altin said. Future studies, she added, should look prospectively at patients with claudication who underwent early versus delayed invasive management.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee said that, for patients with PAD and claudication, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be recommended if LDL cholesterol remains 70 mg/dL or higher and symptoms persist after a regimen of lifestyle modification, exercise, antiplatelet therapy, and high-intensity statins and other guideline-directed medical therapy. He also suggests a direct oral anticoagulant be considered before resorting to endovascular or surgical revascularization.

“We need to optimize risk-factor modification, medical therapy and exercise, and only reserve PVI for patients with severe lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication who have tried and failed everything else,” Dr. Bolorunduro agreed in an interview. “I educate my patients about [the amputation] risk and let them know that PVI is not a panacea.”

Dr. Altin has disclosed no relevant relationships. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Bolorunduro have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The diagnosis

Based on the clinical and imaging findings, a diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis was made. GA is a benign and usually asymptomatic condition that occurs mainly beyond the age of 50-60 years and is very rare in childhood.¹ Symptomatic gallbladder adenomyomatosis indicates cholecystectomy, considering the presence of inflammation or gallbladder stones.² Therefore, a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed on our patient. Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses were seen in the entire thickened gallbladder wall on gross pathologic examination (Figure D). Histopathologic examination confirmed the diagnosis of GA with cholecystitis. The patient was eventually diagnosed with diffuse GA. She was successfully discharged from the hospital 4 days after surgery, and 3 months of follow-up were uneventful.

(Gastro Hep Advances/AGA)

References

Eroglu N et al. Diffuse adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder in a child. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2016;38:e307-9.

Bonatti M. et al. Gallbladder adenomyomatosis: imaging findings, tricks and pitfalls. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:243-53.

Hammad AY et al. A literature review of radiological findings to guide the diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:129-35.

The diagnosis

Based on the clinical and imaging findings, a diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis was made. GA is a benign and usually asymptomatic condition that occurs mainly beyond the age of 50-60 years and is very rare in childhood.¹ Symptomatic gallbladder adenomyomatosis indicates cholecystectomy, considering the presence of inflammation or gallbladder stones.² Therefore, a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed on our patient. Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses were seen in the entire thickened gallbladder wall on gross pathologic examination (Figure D). Histopathologic examination confirmed the diagnosis of GA with cholecystitis. The patient was eventually diagnosed with diffuse GA. She was successfully discharged from the hospital 4 days after surgery, and 3 months of follow-up were uneventful.

(Gastro Hep Advances/AGA)

References

Eroglu N et al. Diffuse adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder in a child. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2016;38:e307-9.

Bonatti M. et al. Gallbladder adenomyomatosis: imaging findings, tricks and pitfalls. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:243-53.

Hammad AY et al. A literature review of radiological findings to guide the diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:129-35.

The diagnosis

Based on the clinical and imaging findings, a diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis was made. GA is a benign and usually asymptomatic condition that occurs mainly beyond the age of 50-60 years and is very rare in childhood.¹ Symptomatic gallbladder adenomyomatosis indicates cholecystectomy, considering the presence of inflammation or gallbladder stones.² Therefore, a laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed on our patient. Rokitansky-Aschoff sinuses were seen in the entire thickened gallbladder wall on gross pathologic examination (Figure D). Histopathologic examination confirmed the diagnosis of GA with cholecystitis. The patient was eventually diagnosed with diffuse GA. She was successfully discharged from the hospital 4 days after surgery, and 3 months of follow-up were uneventful.

(Gastro Hep Advances/AGA)

References

Eroglu N et al. Diffuse adenomyomatosis of the gallbladder in a child. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2016;38:e307-9.

Bonatti M. et al. Gallbladder adenomyomatosis: imaging findings, tricks and pitfalls. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:243-53.

Hammad AY et al. A literature review of radiological findings to guide the diagnosis of gallbladder adenomyomatosis. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:129-35.

Celiac disease clinical practice and guideline updates were featured in the Stomach & Small Bowel Post Graduate Course at DDW 2023.

Celiac disease is a small bowel disorder. Specific antibodies along with a duodenal biopsy allow a secure diagnosis of celiac disease. Case detection rates have improved but many patients remain undiagnosed.

The only treatment available at present is a gluten-free diet (GFD). Most patients respond clinically to a GFD but histologic recovery is not always complete and may result in clinical consequences.

The anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA test (tTg-IgA) is the best initial serology test. A total IgA level appropriate for age is required to interpret a negative result. In patients with IgA deficiency, the deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies, and/or tTg-IgA, may be helpful for diagnosis along with a duodenal biopsy.

First-degree female relatives with homozygous DQ2 positivity are at highest risk.

University of Chicago

Both serology and duodenal biopsy have pitfalls in the diagnosis of celiac disease. In children, the diagnosis is secure with a tTg-IgA rate of at least 10 times the upper limit of normal (≥10×ULN) with positive endomysial antibodies (EMA).

There is less data on the correlation of tTg-IgA ≥10×ULN positive with villous atrophy in adults. All others require biopsy for diagnosis.

Considerations to forgo biopsy in adults include: tTg-IgA of ≥10×ULN positive, serology positive test in patients following GFD, or otherwise unable to undergo endoscopy with duodenal biopsy, or shared decision-making. Celiac disease recovery is assessed by clinical response to a GFD and antibody conversion to negative, which does not always correlate with histology.

Clinical consequences of persistent villous atrophy include increased risks for lymphoproliferative malignancy, hip fracture, and refractory celiac disease.

Dr. Semrad is director of the small bowel disease and nutrition program at the University of Chicago Medicine where she is a professor of medicine. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

References

Rubio-Tapia et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118:59-76.

Husby S et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70:141-57.

Celiac disease clinical practice and guideline updates were featured in the Stomach & Small Bowel Post Graduate Course at DDW 2023.

Celiac disease is a small bowel disorder. Specific antibodies along with a duodenal biopsy allow a secure diagnosis of celiac disease. Case detection rates have improved but many patients remain undiagnosed.

The only treatment available at present is a gluten-free diet (GFD). Most patients respond clinically to a GFD but histologic recovery is not always complete and may result in clinical consequences.

The anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA test (tTg-IgA) is the best initial serology test. A total IgA level appropriate for age is required to interpret a negative result. In patients with IgA deficiency, the deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies, and/or tTg-IgA, may be helpful for diagnosis along with a duodenal biopsy.

First-degree female relatives with homozygous DQ2 positivity are at highest risk.

University of Chicago

Both serology and duodenal biopsy have pitfalls in the diagnosis of celiac disease. In children, the diagnosis is secure with a tTg-IgA rate of at least 10 times the upper limit of normal (≥10×ULN) with positive endomysial antibodies (EMA).

There is less data on the correlation of tTg-IgA ≥10×ULN positive with villous atrophy in adults. All others require biopsy for diagnosis.

Considerations to forgo biopsy in adults include: tTg-IgA of ≥10×ULN positive, serology positive test in patients following GFD, or otherwise unable to undergo endoscopy with duodenal biopsy, or shared decision-making. Celiac disease recovery is assessed by clinical response to a GFD and antibody conversion to negative, which does not always correlate with histology.

Clinical consequences of persistent villous atrophy include increased risks for lymphoproliferative malignancy, hip fracture, and refractory celiac disease.

Dr. Semrad is director of the small bowel disease and nutrition program at the University of Chicago Medicine where she is a professor of medicine. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

References

Rubio-Tapia et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118:59-76.

Husby S et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70:141-57.

Celiac disease clinical practice and guideline updates were featured in the Stomach & Small Bowel Post Graduate Course at DDW 2023.

Celiac disease is a small bowel disorder. Specific antibodies along with a duodenal biopsy allow a secure diagnosis of celiac disease. Case detection rates have improved but many patients remain undiagnosed.

The only treatment available at present is a gluten-free diet (GFD). Most patients respond clinically to a GFD but histologic recovery is not always complete and may result in clinical consequences.

The anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA test (tTg-IgA) is the best initial serology test. A total IgA level appropriate for age is required to interpret a negative result. In patients with IgA deficiency, the deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies, and/or tTg-IgA, may be helpful for diagnosis along with a duodenal biopsy.

First-degree female relatives with homozygous DQ2 positivity are at highest risk.

University of Chicago

Both serology and duodenal biopsy have pitfalls in the diagnosis of celiac disease. In children, the diagnosis is secure with a tTg-IgA rate of at least 10 times the upper limit of normal (≥10×ULN) with positive endomysial antibodies (EMA).

There is less data on the correlation of tTg-IgA ≥10×ULN positive with villous atrophy in adults. All others require biopsy for diagnosis.

Considerations to forgo biopsy in adults include: tTg-IgA of ≥10×ULN positive, serology positive test in patients following GFD, or otherwise unable to undergo endoscopy with duodenal biopsy, or shared decision-making. Celiac disease recovery is assessed by clinical response to a GFD and antibody conversion to negative, which does not always correlate with histology.

Clinical consequences of persistent villous atrophy include increased risks for lymphoproliferative malignancy, hip fracture, and refractory celiac disease.

Dr. Semrad is director of the small bowel disease and nutrition program at the University of Chicago Medicine where she is a professor of medicine. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.
 

References

Rubio-Tapia et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118:59-76.

Husby S et al. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70:141-57.

Highlights of advances in pancreaticobiliary disease interventions were reviewed at this year’s Digestive Disease Week (DDW) as part of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) postgraduate course.

(Michigan Medicine)

Over the last several decades, the endoscopic treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease has advanced exponentially. Endoscopic interventions have markedly decreased the need for percutaneous and surgical procedures. Evidence-based advances are changing the landscape of pancreaticobiliary disease management.

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stent placement is first-line for the treatment of biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as an effective alternative in cases of failed ERCP. These procedures can be performed via a transhepatic approach (hepaticogastrostomy) from the proximal stomach, an extrahepatic approach (choledochoduodenostomy) from the duodenum, or via the gallbladder. Numerous studies have proved the safety and efficacy of these interventions in malignant biliary obstruction. A recent systematic meta-analysis pooled all of these approaches and concluded that EUS-guided biliary drainage is also reasonable to offer in benign disease when ERCP has failed or is not technically possible.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage is similarly emerging as an alternative approach for management of acute cholecystitis. This is a reasonable option in patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, have no evidence of gallbladder perforation, and will tolerate sedation. Moreover, this approach may be preferred over ERCP with cystic duct stent placement in the setting of a large stone burden, gastric outlet obstruction, or when an indwelling metal biliary stent occludes the cystic duct. Multidisciplinary discussion with surgical and interventional radiology services is essential, especially given this technique may preclude future cholecystectomy.

Indeterminate biliary strictures historically pose a major diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. ERCP with concurrent brushing of the bile duct for cytology remains the most commonly used method of acquiring tissue. However, the sensitivity of diagnosis on brush cytology remains frustratingly low. Recent compelling evidence for increasing the number of brush passes to 30 in an indeterminate stricture improves diagnostic sensitivity and is a simple, safe, and low-cost intervention. This approach may ultimately decrease the number of patients requiring surgical intervention, which is particularly important when up to one-fifth of suspected biliary malignancies are found to be benign after surgical resection.

Not only have studies addressed increasing the diagnostic yield of stricture evaluation, but the treatment of biliary strictures has also evolved. Various stents are available, and different practice patterns have emerged for management of this entity. In an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating multiple plastic stents versus a single covered metal stent for benign biliary strictures, no difference was found in stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, stent migration or adverse events. However, those patients treated with covered metal stents required fewer sessions of ERCP for stricture resolution. Moreover, no difference in stricture resolution was seen in subgroup analysis between anastomotic strictures, chronic pancreatitis, or bile duct injury. Despite higher cost of the stent itself, covered metal stents may ultimately lead to an overall decrease in health care expenditure.

The above examples are only a small subset of the progress that has been made in endoscopic management of pancreaticobiliary disease. The armamentarium of tools and techniques will continue to evolve to help us provide better minimally invasive care for our patients.

Dr. Schulman is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and the department of surgery at the University of Michigan. She is the incoming chief of endoscopy and the director of bariatric endoscopy. She disclosed consultancy work with Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus and MicroTech. She also disclosed research and grant support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl.

Highlights of advances in pancreaticobiliary disease interventions were reviewed at this year’s Digestive Disease Week (DDW) as part of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) postgraduate course.

(Michigan Medicine)

Over the last several decades, the endoscopic treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease has advanced exponentially. Endoscopic interventions have markedly decreased the need for percutaneous and surgical procedures. Evidence-based advances are changing the landscape of pancreaticobiliary disease management.

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stent placement is first-line for the treatment of biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as an effective alternative in cases of failed ERCP. These procedures can be performed via a transhepatic approach (hepaticogastrostomy) from the proximal stomach, an extrahepatic approach (choledochoduodenostomy) from the duodenum, or via the gallbladder. Numerous studies have proved the safety and efficacy of these interventions in malignant biliary obstruction. A recent systematic meta-analysis pooled all of these approaches and concluded that EUS-guided biliary drainage is also reasonable to offer in benign disease when ERCP has failed or is not technically possible.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage is similarly emerging as an alternative approach for management of acute cholecystitis. This is a reasonable option in patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, have no evidence of gallbladder perforation, and will tolerate sedation. Moreover, this approach may be preferred over ERCP with cystic duct stent placement in the setting of a large stone burden, gastric outlet obstruction, or when an indwelling metal biliary stent occludes the cystic duct. Multidisciplinary discussion with surgical and interventional radiology services is essential, especially given this technique may preclude future cholecystectomy.

Indeterminate biliary strictures historically pose a major diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. ERCP with concurrent brushing of the bile duct for cytology remains the most commonly used method of acquiring tissue. However, the sensitivity of diagnosis on brush cytology remains frustratingly low. Recent compelling evidence for increasing the number of brush passes to 30 in an indeterminate stricture improves diagnostic sensitivity and is a simple, safe, and low-cost intervention. This approach may ultimately decrease the number of patients requiring surgical intervention, which is particularly important when up to one-fifth of suspected biliary malignancies are found to be benign after surgical resection.

Not only have studies addressed increasing the diagnostic yield of stricture evaluation, but the treatment of biliary strictures has also evolved. Various stents are available, and different practice patterns have emerged for management of this entity. In an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating multiple plastic stents versus a single covered metal stent for benign biliary strictures, no difference was found in stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, stent migration or adverse events. However, those patients treated with covered metal stents required fewer sessions of ERCP for stricture resolution. Moreover, no difference in stricture resolution was seen in subgroup analysis between anastomotic strictures, chronic pancreatitis, or bile duct injury. Despite higher cost of the stent itself, covered metal stents may ultimately lead to an overall decrease in health care expenditure.

The above examples are only a small subset of the progress that has been made in endoscopic management of pancreaticobiliary disease. The armamentarium of tools and techniques will continue to evolve to help us provide better minimally invasive care for our patients.

Dr. Schulman is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and the department of surgery at the University of Michigan. She is the incoming chief of endoscopy and the director of bariatric endoscopy. She disclosed consultancy work with Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus and MicroTech. She also disclosed research and grant support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl.

Highlights of advances in pancreaticobiliary disease interventions were reviewed at this year’s Digestive Disease Week (DDW) as part of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) postgraduate course.

(Michigan Medicine)

Over the last several decades, the endoscopic treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease has advanced exponentially. Endoscopic interventions have markedly decreased the need for percutaneous and surgical procedures. Evidence-based advances are changing the landscape of pancreaticobiliary disease management.

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stent placement is first-line for the treatment of biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as an effective alternative in cases of failed ERCP. These procedures can be performed via a transhepatic approach (hepaticogastrostomy) from the proximal stomach, an extrahepatic approach (choledochoduodenostomy) from the duodenum, or via the gallbladder. Numerous studies have proved the safety and efficacy of these interventions in malignant biliary obstruction. A recent systematic meta-analysis pooled all of these approaches and concluded that EUS-guided biliary drainage is also reasonable to offer in benign disease when ERCP has failed or is not technically possible.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage is similarly emerging as an alternative approach for management of acute cholecystitis. This is a reasonable option in patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, have no evidence of gallbladder perforation, and will tolerate sedation. Moreover, this approach may be preferred over ERCP with cystic duct stent placement in the setting of a large stone burden, gastric outlet obstruction, or when an indwelling metal biliary stent occludes the cystic duct. Multidisciplinary discussion with surgical and interventional radiology services is essential, especially given this technique may preclude future cholecystectomy.

Indeterminate biliary strictures historically pose a major diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. ERCP with concurrent brushing of the bile duct for cytology remains the most commonly used method of acquiring tissue. However, the sensitivity of diagnosis on brush cytology remains frustratingly low. Recent compelling evidence for increasing the number of brush passes to 30 in an indeterminate stricture improves diagnostic sensitivity and is a simple, safe, and low-cost intervention. This approach may ultimately decrease the number of patients requiring surgical intervention, which is particularly important when up to one-fifth of suspected biliary malignancies are found to be benign after surgical resection.

Not only have studies addressed increasing the diagnostic yield of stricture evaluation, but the treatment of biliary strictures has also evolved. Various stents are available, and different practice patterns have emerged for management of this entity. In an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating multiple plastic stents versus a single covered metal stent for benign biliary strictures, no difference was found in stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, stent migration or adverse events. However, those patients treated with covered metal stents required fewer sessions of ERCP for stricture resolution. Moreover, no difference in stricture resolution was seen in subgroup analysis between anastomotic strictures, chronic pancreatitis, or bile duct injury. Despite higher cost of the stent itself, covered metal stents may ultimately lead to an overall decrease in health care expenditure.

The above examples are only a small subset of the progress that has been made in endoscopic management of pancreaticobiliary disease. The armamentarium of tools and techniques will continue to evolve to help us provide better minimally invasive care for our patients.

Dr. Schulman is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and the department of surgery at the University of Michigan. She is the incoming chief of endoscopy and the director of bariatric endoscopy. She disclosed consultancy work with Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus and MicroTech. She also disclosed research and grant support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. There’s a controversy over blood pressure targets. Some argue for 140/90 mm Hg, others for 130/80 mm Hg, and some super ambitious folks think that we should aim for 120/80 mm Hg. If this sounds familiar, it should. We did it in 2017. It’s unclear what, if anything, we learned from the experience. On the upside, it’s not as bad as it was 100 years ago.

When high blood pressure was a ‘good’ thing

Back then, many believed that you needed higher blood pressure as you got older to push the blood through your progressively stiffened and hardened arteries. Hence the name “essential” hypertension. The concern was that lowering blood pressure would hypoperfuse your organs and be dangerous. In the 1930s, John Hay told an audience at a British Medical Association lecture: “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

The 1900s were a simpler time when people had fatal strokes in their 50s, and their families were consoled by the knowledge that they had lived a good life.

If our thinking around blood pressure had evolved slightly faster, perhaps President Roosevelt wouldn’t have died of a stroke during World War II as his doctors watched his systolic blood pressure climb above 200 mm Hg and suggested massages and barbiturates to take the edge off.
 

The current controversy

Not that long ago, 180 mm Hg was considered mild hypertension. Now, we are arguing about a systolic blood pressure of 140 versus 130 mm Hg.

The American Academy of Family Physicians takes the view that 140/90 mm Hg is good enough for most people. Their most recent clinical practice guideline, based primarily on two 2020 Cochrane Reviews of blood pressure targets in patients with and without cardiovascular disease, did not find any mortality benefit for a lower blood pressure threshold.

This puts the AAFP guideline in conflict with the 2017 guideline issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other groups, which recommended a target of 130/80 mm Hg for pretty much everyone. Though they say greater than 140/90 mm Hg should be the threshold for low-risk patients or for starting therapy post stroke, we often forget those nuances. The main point of contention is that the AAFP guideline was looking for a mortality benefit, whereas the ACC/AHA/everyone else guideline was looking at preventing cardiovascular events. The latter guideline was driven mainly by the results of the SPRINT trial. ACC/AHA argue for more aggressive targets to prevent the things that cardiologists care about, namely heart attacks.

The AAFP guideline conceded that more aggressive control will result in fewer myocardial infarctions but warn that it comes with more adverse events. Treating 1,000 patients to this lower target would theoretically prevent four MIs, possibly prevent three strokes, but result in 30 adverse events.

In the end, what we are seeing here is not so much a debate over the evidence as a debate over priorities. The AAFP’s main focus is all-cause mortality; the ACC/AHA’s is cardiovascular events. Interventions that don’t improve mortality can be questioned in terms of their cost effectiveness. But you probably don’t want to have a heart attack (even a nonfatal one). And you certainly don’t want to have a stroke. However, lower blood pressure targets inevitably require more medications. Notwithstanding the economic costs, the dangers of polypharmacy, medication interactions, side effects, and syncope leading to falls cannot be ignored. Falls are not benign adverse events, especially in older adults.

The counter argument is that physicians are human and often let things slide. Set the target at 140/90 mm Hg, and many physicians won’t jump on a systolic blood pressure of 144 mm Hg. Set the target at 130 mm Hg, and maybe they’ll be more likely to react. There’s a fine line between permissiveness and complacency.

If you zoom out and look at the multitude of blood pressure guidelines, you start to notice an important fact. There is not much daylight between them. There are subtle differences in what constitutes high risk and different definitions of older (older should be defined as 10 years older than the reader’s current age). But otherwise, the blood pressure targets are not that different.

Does that final 10 mm Hg really matter when barriers to care mean that tens of millions in the United States are unaware they have hypertension? Even among those diagnosed, many are either untreated or inadequately treated.

With this context, perhaps the most insightful thing that can be said about the blood pressure guideline controversy is that it’s not all that controversial. We can likely all agree that we need to be better at treating hypertension and that creative solutions to reach underserved communities are necessary.

Arguing about 140/90 mm Hg or 130/80 mm Hg is less important than acknowledging that we should be aggressive in screening for and treating hypertension. We should acknowledge that beyond a certain point any cardiovascular benefit comes at the cost of hypotension and side effects. That tipping point will be different for different groups, and probably at a higher set point in older patients.

Individualizing care isn’t difficult. We do it all the time. We just shouldn’t be letting people walk around with untreated hypertension. It’s not the 1900s anymore.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. There’s a controversy over blood pressure targets. Some argue for 140/90 mm Hg, others for 130/80 mm Hg, and some super ambitious folks think that we should aim for 120/80 mm Hg. If this sounds familiar, it should. We did it in 2017. It’s unclear what, if anything, we learned from the experience. On the upside, it’s not as bad as it was 100 years ago.

When high blood pressure was a ‘good’ thing

Back then, many believed that you needed higher blood pressure as you got older to push the blood through your progressively stiffened and hardened arteries. Hence the name “essential” hypertension. The concern was that lowering blood pressure would hypoperfuse your organs and be dangerous. In the 1930s, John Hay told an audience at a British Medical Association lecture: “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

The 1900s were a simpler time when people had fatal strokes in their 50s, and their families were consoled by the knowledge that they had lived a good life.

If our thinking around blood pressure had evolved slightly faster, perhaps President Roosevelt wouldn’t have died of a stroke during World War II as his doctors watched his systolic blood pressure climb above 200 mm Hg and suggested massages and barbiturates to take the edge off.
 

The current controversy

Not that long ago, 180 mm Hg was considered mild hypertension. Now, we are arguing about a systolic blood pressure of 140 versus 130 mm Hg.

The American Academy of Family Physicians takes the view that 140/90 mm Hg is good enough for most people. Their most recent clinical practice guideline, based primarily on two 2020 Cochrane Reviews of blood pressure targets in patients with and without cardiovascular disease, did not find any mortality benefit for a lower blood pressure threshold.

This puts the AAFP guideline in conflict with the 2017 guideline issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other groups, which recommended a target of 130/80 mm Hg for pretty much everyone. Though they say greater than 140/90 mm Hg should be the threshold for low-risk patients or for starting therapy post stroke, we often forget those nuances. The main point of contention is that the AAFP guideline was looking for a mortality benefit, whereas the ACC/AHA/everyone else guideline was looking at preventing cardiovascular events. The latter guideline was driven mainly by the results of the SPRINT trial. ACC/AHA argue for more aggressive targets to prevent the things that cardiologists care about, namely heart attacks.

The AAFP guideline conceded that more aggressive control will result in fewer myocardial infarctions but warn that it comes with more adverse events. Treating 1,000 patients to this lower target would theoretically prevent four MIs, possibly prevent three strokes, but result in 30 adverse events.

In the end, what we are seeing here is not so much a debate over the evidence as a debate over priorities. The AAFP’s main focus is all-cause mortality; the ACC/AHA’s is cardiovascular events. Interventions that don’t improve mortality can be questioned in terms of their cost effectiveness. But you probably don’t want to have a heart attack (even a nonfatal one). And you certainly don’t want to have a stroke. However, lower blood pressure targets inevitably require more medications. Notwithstanding the economic costs, the dangers of polypharmacy, medication interactions, side effects, and syncope leading to falls cannot be ignored. Falls are not benign adverse events, especially in older adults.

The counter argument is that physicians are human and often let things slide. Set the target at 140/90 mm Hg, and many physicians won’t jump on a systolic blood pressure of 144 mm Hg. Set the target at 130 mm Hg, and maybe they’ll be more likely to react. There’s a fine line between permissiveness and complacency.

If you zoom out and look at the multitude of blood pressure guidelines, you start to notice an important fact. There is not much daylight between them. There are subtle differences in what constitutes high risk and different definitions of older (older should be defined as 10 years older than the reader’s current age). But otherwise, the blood pressure targets are not that different.

Does that final 10 mm Hg really matter when barriers to care mean that tens of millions in the United States are unaware they have hypertension? Even among those diagnosed, many are either untreated or inadequately treated.

With this context, perhaps the most insightful thing that can be said about the blood pressure guideline controversy is that it’s not all that controversial. We can likely all agree that we need to be better at treating hypertension and that creative solutions to reach underserved communities are necessary.

Arguing about 140/90 mm Hg or 130/80 mm Hg is less important than acknowledging that we should be aggressive in screening for and treating hypertension. We should acknowledge that beyond a certain point any cardiovascular benefit comes at the cost of hypotension and side effects. That tipping point will be different for different groups, and probably at a higher set point in older patients.

Individualizing care isn’t difficult. We do it all the time. We just shouldn’t be letting people walk around with untreated hypertension. It’s not the 1900s anymore.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. There’s a controversy over blood pressure targets. Some argue for 140/90 mm Hg, others for 130/80 mm Hg, and some super ambitious folks think that we should aim for 120/80 mm Hg. If this sounds familiar, it should. We did it in 2017. It’s unclear what, if anything, we learned from the experience. On the upside, it’s not as bad as it was 100 years ago.

When high blood pressure was a ‘good’ thing

Back then, many believed that you needed higher blood pressure as you got older to push the blood through your progressively stiffened and hardened arteries. Hence the name “essential” hypertension. The concern was that lowering blood pressure would hypoperfuse your organs and be dangerous. In the 1930s, John Hay told an audience at a British Medical Association lecture: “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

The 1900s were a simpler time when people had fatal strokes in their 50s, and their families were consoled by the knowledge that they had lived a good life.

If our thinking around blood pressure had evolved slightly faster, perhaps President Roosevelt wouldn’t have died of a stroke during World War II as his doctors watched his systolic blood pressure climb above 200 mm Hg and suggested massages and barbiturates to take the edge off.
 

The current controversy

Not that long ago, 180 mm Hg was considered mild hypertension. Now, we are arguing about a systolic blood pressure of 140 versus 130 mm Hg.

The American Academy of Family Physicians takes the view that 140/90 mm Hg is good enough for most people. Their most recent clinical practice guideline, based primarily on two 2020 Cochrane Reviews of blood pressure targets in patients with and without cardiovascular disease, did not find any mortality benefit for a lower blood pressure threshold.

This puts the AAFP guideline in conflict with the 2017 guideline issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other groups, which recommended a target of 130/80 mm Hg for pretty much everyone. Though they say greater than 140/90 mm Hg should be the threshold for low-risk patients or for starting therapy post stroke, we often forget those nuances. The main point of contention is that the AAFP guideline was looking for a mortality benefit, whereas the ACC/AHA/everyone else guideline was looking at preventing cardiovascular events. The latter guideline was driven mainly by the results of the SPRINT trial. ACC/AHA argue for more aggressive targets to prevent the things that cardiologists care about, namely heart attacks.

The AAFP guideline conceded that more aggressive control will result in fewer myocardial infarctions but warn that it comes with more adverse events. Treating 1,000 patients to this lower target would theoretically prevent four MIs, possibly prevent three strokes, but result in 30 adverse events.

In the end, what we are seeing here is not so much a debate over the evidence as a debate over priorities. The AAFP’s main focus is all-cause mortality; the ACC/AHA’s is cardiovascular events. Interventions that don’t improve mortality can be questioned in terms of their cost effectiveness. But you probably don’t want to have a heart attack (even a nonfatal one). And you certainly don’t want to have a stroke. However, lower blood pressure targets inevitably require more medications. Notwithstanding the economic costs, the dangers of polypharmacy, medication interactions, side effects, and syncope leading to falls cannot be ignored. Falls are not benign adverse events, especially in older adults.

The counter argument is that physicians are human and often let things slide. Set the target at 140/90 mm Hg, and many physicians won’t jump on a systolic blood pressure of 144 mm Hg. Set the target at 130 mm Hg, and maybe they’ll be more likely to react. There’s a fine line between permissiveness and complacency.

If you zoom out and look at the multitude of blood pressure guidelines, you start to notice an important fact. There is not much daylight between them. There are subtle differences in what constitutes high risk and different definitions of older (older should be defined as 10 years older than the reader’s current age). But otherwise, the blood pressure targets are not that different.

Does that final 10 mm Hg really matter when barriers to care mean that tens of millions in the United States are unaware they have hypertension? Even among those diagnosed, many are either untreated or inadequately treated.

With this context, perhaps the most insightful thing that can be said about the blood pressure guideline controversy is that it’s not all that controversial. We can likely all agree that we need to be better at treating hypertension and that creative solutions to reach underserved communities are necessary.

Arguing about 140/90 mm Hg or 130/80 mm Hg is less important than acknowledging that we should be aggressive in screening for and treating hypertension. We should acknowledge that beyond a certain point any cardiovascular benefit comes at the cost of hypotension and side effects. That tipping point will be different for different groups, and probably at a higher set point in older patients.

Individualizing care isn’t difficult. We do it all the time. We just shouldn’t be letting people walk around with untreated hypertension. It’s not the 1900s anymore.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the presence of antidrug antibodies was associated with a diminished response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in a prospective cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively analyzed data from 230 patients (mean age, 54.3 years; 77.0% women) with RA diagnosis recruited from March 3, 2014, to June 21, 2016.
• All were initiating new treatment with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monoclonal antibody (mAb; either infliximab or adalimumab), etanercept, tocilizumab, or rituximab, according to the choice of the treating physician.
• The primary outcome was the association of antidrug antibody positivity with European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) response to treatment at month 12, assessed through univariate logistic regression.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, antidrug antibody positivity was 38.2% in patients who were treated with anti-TNF mAbs, 6.1% with etanercept, 50.0% with rituximab, and 20.0% with tocilizumab.
• There was an inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity directed against all biologic drugs and EULAR response at month 12 (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.38; P < .001).
• In the multivariable analysis, antidrug antibodies, body mass index, and rheumatoid factor were independently and inversely associated with response to treatment.
• There was a significantly higher drug concentration of anti-TNF mAbs in patients with antidrug antibody–negative vs. antidrug antibody–positive status (mean difference, –9.6 mg/L; 95% CI, –12.4 to –6.9; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Findings of this study suggest that antidrug antibodies are associated with nonresponse to biologic drugs and can be monitored in the management of patients with RA, particularly nonresponders.

SOURCE:

Samuel Bitouin, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology department at Paris-Saclay University, and coauthors in the ABIRISK (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: Prediction and Analysis of Clinical Relevance to Minimize the Risk) consortium reported the study in JAMA Network Open. The work was funded by a grant from the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative.

LIMITATIONS:

Though the study demonstrated an association when all biologic drugs were analyzed together, it was not powered to demonstrate an association for each drug class.

DISCLOSURES:

Many authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the presence of antidrug antibodies was associated with a diminished response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in a prospective cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively analyzed data from 230 patients (mean age, 54.3 years; 77.0% women) with RA diagnosis recruited from March 3, 2014, to June 21, 2016.
• All were initiating new treatment with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monoclonal antibody (mAb; either infliximab or adalimumab), etanercept, tocilizumab, or rituximab, according to the choice of the treating physician.
• The primary outcome was the association of antidrug antibody positivity with European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) response to treatment at month 12, assessed through univariate logistic regression.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, antidrug antibody positivity was 38.2% in patients who were treated with anti-TNF mAbs, 6.1% with etanercept, 50.0% with rituximab, and 20.0% with tocilizumab.
• There was an inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity directed against all biologic drugs and EULAR response at month 12 (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.38; P < .001).
• In the multivariable analysis, antidrug antibodies, body mass index, and rheumatoid factor were independently and inversely associated with response to treatment.
• There was a significantly higher drug concentration of anti-TNF mAbs in patients with antidrug antibody–negative vs. antidrug antibody–positive status (mean difference, –9.6 mg/L; 95% CI, –12.4 to –6.9; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Findings of this study suggest that antidrug antibodies are associated with nonresponse to biologic drugs and can be monitored in the management of patients with RA, particularly nonresponders.

SOURCE:

Samuel Bitouin, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology department at Paris-Saclay University, and coauthors in the ABIRISK (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: Prediction and Analysis of Clinical Relevance to Minimize the Risk) consortium reported the study in JAMA Network Open. The work was funded by a grant from the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative.

LIMITATIONS:

Though the study demonstrated an association when all biologic drugs were analyzed together, it was not powered to demonstrate an association for each drug class.

DISCLOSURES:

Many authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the presence of antidrug antibodies was associated with a diminished response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in a prospective cohort study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers prospectively analyzed data from 230 patients (mean age, 54.3 years; 77.0% women) with RA diagnosis recruited from March 3, 2014, to June 21, 2016.
• All were initiating new treatment with an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monoclonal antibody (mAb; either infliximab or adalimumab), etanercept, tocilizumab, or rituximab, according to the choice of the treating physician.
• The primary outcome was the association of antidrug antibody positivity with European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) response to treatment at month 12, assessed through univariate logistic regression.

TAKEAWAY:

• At month 12, antidrug antibody positivity was 38.2% in patients who were treated with anti-TNF mAbs, 6.1% with etanercept, 50.0% with rituximab, and 20.0% with tocilizumab.
• There was an inverse association between antidrug antibody positivity directed against all biologic drugs and EULAR response at month 12 (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.38; P < .001).
• In the multivariable analysis, antidrug antibodies, body mass index, and rheumatoid factor were independently and inversely associated with response to treatment.
• There was a significantly higher drug concentration of anti-TNF mAbs in patients with antidrug antibody–negative vs. antidrug antibody–positive status (mean difference, –9.6 mg/L; 95% CI, –12.4 to –6.9; P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Findings of this study suggest that antidrug antibodies are associated with nonresponse to biologic drugs and can be monitored in the management of patients with RA, particularly nonresponders.

SOURCE:

Samuel Bitouin, MD, PhD, of the rheumatology department at Paris-Saclay University, and coauthors in the ABIRISK (Anti-Biopharmaceutical Immunization: Prediction and Analysis of Clinical Relevance to Minimize the Risk) consortium reported the study in JAMA Network Open. The work was funded by a grant from the European Union Innovative Medicines Initiative.

LIMITATIONS:

Though the study demonstrated an association when all biologic drugs were analyzed together, it was not powered to demonstrate an association for each drug class.

DISCLOSURES:

Many authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Berberine, a plant-derived compound historically used in traditional Chinese medicine, is experiencing increased popularity thanks to social media, especially TikTok, where the hashtag #berberine has more than 75 million views at the time of this writing. Social media influencers are promoting the compound, calling it “nature’s Ozempic,” saying they lost weight taking the supplement.

Off-the-shelf berberine comes as a yellow-orange powder usually encased in a capsule or mixed into tablet form. It’s extracted from the roots, stems, and leaves of various plants, including goldenseal and barberry.

Its use is additionally promoted for insulin resistance, polycystic ovary syndrome, and even cancer, but medical experts are warning potential users that it lacks robust evidence to support its use.

“There’s not that much data on it,” says Reshmi Srinath, MD, director of the Mount Sinai weight and metabolism management program, New York. “It’s sort of shocking now that it’s popped up into the media, to be frank.”

In response to berberine’s online popularity, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health issued a warning, stating that “there isn’t enough rigorous scientific evidence to determine whether it is effective.”
 

Overstated claims, lack of scientific research?

Other endocrinologists and weight management experts agree. “The claims are pretty overstated when it comes to the impact on weight loss, based on the evidence in the literature that’s currently available,” says Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, weight wellness program.

A review of 12 randomized controlled trials evaluating berberine’s effects on obesity concluded that the treatment moderately decreased body weight. The trials included were conducted over only a few months and had small numbers of participants, and weight loss was not the primary outcome measure.

“There are few randomized controlled trials,” says Ivania Rizo, MD, an endocrinologist at Boston University. “It appears that they all have some low quality of methods which essentially can lead to an increased risk of bias.”

Another review, of 35 studies – most of them on animals and human cells and similarly underpowered – concluded that berberine showed promise for reducing blood glucose. A separate study found that berberine treatment actually increased the body weight and appetite of rats.

How exactly berberine elicits these effects is not entirely clear. Several studies point to its activation of AMP-activated protein kinase, which improves glucose tolerance in rats, as the mechanism for weight loss. Metformin, a drug used to improve glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes, works in a similar way. Other researchers have hypothesized a link between berberine and the gut microbiome to explain its effect on type 2 diabetes and weight loss, though the clinical data to substantiate this link are shaky.

“I caution my patients about dietary supplements for weight management because we do not have high-quality data demonstrating efficacy,” Katherine Saunders, MD, DABOM, an obesity expert and cofounder of Intellihealth, a platform for obesity management, said in an email.
 

Experimenting with berberine

Despite the lack of substantial evidence supporting berberine’s use for weight management and obesity, interest in the supplement seems to be increasing. One reason could be that lifestyle interventions aren’t sufficient for most people with obesity to lose a significant amount of weight, with many requiring medical intervention, according to Dr. Saunders.

But access to treatment providers is limited. “As a result, it is not uncommon for individuals with obesity to experiment with dietary supplements like berberine,” she observed.

Dr. Srinath, the Mount Sinai doctor, says many patients have asked for her thoughts on berberine as a weight loss supplement. “I say, you know, it’s something you’re welcome to try, but we don’t have enough data at this time to recommend it.”

The hype surrounding the supplement isn’t all that surprising. About 42% of adults in the United States have obesity, according to 2019-2023 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, pointing to a serious need for accessible drugs to address the condition. Berberine is available over the counter and is far cheaper than most of the newer U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs for weight loss.

Wegovy, semaglutide approved to treat obesity, can cost as much as $1,300 per package; and Ozempic, semaglutide approved to treat type 2 diabetes, can cost more than $1,000 per month. “That’s a very steep price to pay,” says Dr. Srinath.

Many insurance companies won’t cover the drugs, curbing access to Americans who need them, says Dr. Almandoz. Federally sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid also don’t cover the drugs, which are approved for obesity and weight management. “That’s been a huge hole in our health care system,” says Dr. Srinath. “That’s sort of what’s been driving interest in supplements and things like that.”

Among adults trying to lose weight, only about 3% said they took prescription medication for weight loss, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This report includes 2013-2016 data, predating Wegovy’s approval for chronic weight management.

“These classes are notorious for being quite pricey and not well covered by insurance,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It’s easy to see why someone would promote something that someone may have more access to.”

Comparing Ozempic or Wegovy with berberine can be misleading. Those drugs work by mimicking the effect of the hormone GLP-1 to help reduce appetite.

A clinical trial assessing the efficacy of semaglutide found that adults with obesity who took the drug for 68 weeks lost approximately 15% of their body weight in combination with lifestyle changes. The FDA approval was based on this trial and three others that showed similarly substantial reductions in weight.

The trials also document the many side effects of taking the drugs, primarily gastrointestinal in nature. The short- and long-term effects of berberine, on the other hand, are less clear. Some of the clinical trials reported diarrhea and stomach upset as the most common adverse effects.

Its perception as a naturally derived option for weight loss, though, might encourage people to overlook the potential interactions that berberine could have with other drugs, according to Dr. Almandoz.

He says clinicians considering natural products or nutraceuticals for patients should check for potential side effects and find reliable database sources to determine any potential medication interactions for patients. But the unregulated nature of berberine makes this challenging, Dr. Almandoz adds.

The dosage, formulations, and quality of berberine vary in each study and each product because supplements don’t need to pass through the checks and balances of the FDA to land on shelves.

The lack of regulation could incentivize some companies to add stimulants to enhance any weight loss effect that the supplement may have. Those additives might interact with other health conditions or cause side effects like anxiety, says Dr. Almandoz.

Berberine should also not be taken during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, and it is unsafe for young children; in newborns and children, the supplement can cause higher levels of bilirubin in the blood, worsening any jaundice at birth and posing a greater risk for kernicterus.

Dr. Rizo urges patients, before they ask for berberine, to first ask for safe and effective interventions they can access. “I don’t want to have people not use effective interventions that are currently available to them, and instead use something that needs to be better studied and needs to be better regulated,” she says.

While the “nature’s Ozempic” catchphrase could be drawing in potential users with its dubious comparison, berberine’s escalating popularity might also be a symptom of people seeking a quick fix, the experts worry.

“That’s my fear,” says Dr. Srinath. “ ‘Let me get this medicine, let me lose the weight fast,’ but at the end of the day, weight management is a long-term journey. It takes time, it takes effort, it is not easy, and there is no quick fix.”

This is another concern for doctors; for people who’ve struggled with losing weight for years, not seeing results from berberine could feel like another failure.

“It will give them another opportunity to feel like they are being unsuccessful or that they are failing at weight loss again,” says Dr. Almandoz. “It feeds into the hopelessness that many people with obesity have around their weight management.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Asthma has long been associated with the use of inhalers to control symptoms. The new S2K guideline on the management of asthma, compiled by experts and published in March 2023, aims to change this. “For decades, we have known about medication that can be used to put asthma into remission. The patient can go out or travel on vacation without an inhaler. This is possible. This is a symptom-prevention approach,” said the guideline coordinator Marek Lommatzsch, MD, PhD, head senior physician of the pulmonology department at the University Medicine Rostock, Germany, in an interview.

The guideline was created by the German Respiratory Society, and a further 11 professional societies from Germany and Austria were involved in the update. The authors comprehensively revised the guideline from 2017, and the evidence-based national disease management guideline (NVL) for general asthma care from 2020 was amended.

Erika von Mutius, MD, PhD, pediatrician and professor of pediatric allergology and pulmonology at the Dr. Von Hauner Children’s Hospital, Munich, and director of the Institute of Asthma and Allergy Prevention at Helmholtz Munich, was not directly involved in the guideline. She said, “This guideline is an informed statement that takes the development over recent years into account. It had been anticipated for some time now. For me, the input from pediatricians should be particularly noted.”
 

Anti-inflammatory therapy

The significance of anti-inflammatory therapy was stressed in the NVL from 2020. The new guideline holds that anti-inflammatory therapy should be considered the primary therapeutic option. “We are making a U-turn: only treat the respiratory inflammation. Salbutamol should still only be given in exceptional cases as required,” according to Dr. Lommatzsch.

In the guideline, asthma therapy is described using an updated step-by-step plan. Inhaled glucocorticoids (ICS) represent the most important pillar of therapy. ICS can be used as permanent therapy or as as-needed therapy in fixed combination with formoterol, which rapidly dilates the airways.

Allergen immunotherapy, also known as hyposensitization, and biologics are also effective anti-inflammatory treatments, Dr. Lommatzsch added. “We must ensure that these anti-inflammatory medicines are also used effectively. Mild to moderate forms of asthma can be treated easily by a primary care physician,” he said. Basic diagnostics in the form of a blood sample are required. A somewhat more comprehensive medical history is also needed. “It takes a little more time and involves more than just taking the inhaler out of the cupboard.”

The situation regarding children, however, is a little different with regard to anti-inflammatory therapy, Dr. Von Mutius explained. “Childhood asthma has many forms, and confirming the diagnosis is not always straightforward, especially in infancy. If needed, salbutamol can be prescribed. However, the anti-inflammatory medication should usually also be administered.”

She emphasized that the guideline has been designed in a sophisticated way that offers the option of “using medical experience to see what is suitable for this family or better for this patient. This is still always subject to medical judgment and responsibility. I find this really successful.”
 

Diagnostics using biomarkers

The previous guideline concentrated on measuring lung function as a way of diagnosing asthmatic illness. Three biomarkers were brought to the fore:

• Eosinophils in the blood.
• IgE levels.
• The FeNO test (proportion of nitrogen monoxide in exhaled air).

Slightly amended, the guideline now states that the FeNO test is implemented as “an integral component of specialist diagnosis.”

The test measures the nitrogen monoxide content of exhaled air as an indicator of inflammation in the airways. However, this test must often be paid for by the patient. “In this respect, we want to give a nudge in the direction of the political decision-makers,” emphasized Dr. Lommatzsch.

Dr. Von Mutius added that use of the FeNO test has not been established in many practices and outpatient clinics. The inflammatory marker is also subject to fluctuations. “This is an update to the guideline where we must wait to see the political response.”
 

Which biologic?

Despite treatment with the established therapies, the symptoms of asthma can persist in some people with severe forms of the condition. Biologics are highly effective for these patients and are preferable in the last stage of therapy to long-term therapy with oral steroids, which have numerous side effects. The current guideline provides an overview diagram to help decide which biologic is suitable for which patient.

“There are six biologics that can be used to treat severe asthma. Officially, almost any biologic can be taken into consideration for a patient, since the approvals overlap. Nevertheless, we know that certain patients benefit hugely from certain biologics. A targeted choice should therefore be made,” explained Dr. Lommatzsch.

Biologics were mentioned in the 2020 NVL but not to the great extent that they are in the latest version. “For the first time, we have created an overview diagram for the individual choice of biologic. With it, we have now set a standard,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Therapy with biologics has brought about rapid progress for adults. Dr. Von Mutius anticipates challenges in approving such therapeutics for pediatric treatment. “As is often the case, these therapies are not approved for young children. Meanwhile, dupilumab is approved for children aged 6 months and older; unfortunately, the indication for this is actually atopic dermatitis,” she explains.

When using this therapy for pediatric patients, it is therefore important to explain the options to parents and to inform them of side effects. Severe forms of asthma are rare in children; they are uncommon in adults but are more prevalent than in children.
 

Children and adolescents

One new chapter in the guideline describes giving medical advice to adolescents choosing a career. A table has been compiled that contains information regarding jobs and their respective allergy and asthma risk. The table is designed to be displayed in a medical practice.

Another chapter characterizes the interrelation between asthma and mental health. It differentiates between psychiatric comorbidities for which the patient requires professional help and the stress caused by the asthmatic illness itself. Many patients do not have a mental illness but do suffer under the everyday strain of having asthma, said Dr. Lommatzsch. Therefore, it is important to educate patients and their relatives on how to make a strength out of this supposed weakness – the asthmatic illness. “We have established a procedure for this and have summarized its key points in the guideline,” said Dr. Lommatzsch.

Other updates to the guideline cover asthma in different contexts, such as in pregnant women. The updates address adrenal insufficiency as a side effect of the use of steroids over many years. In addition, the guideline contains a chapter on digital apps that can help with diagnostics and medical history.

Dr. Lommatzsch highlighted a new tool. “By using 15 key points summarized in a table, the guideline displays the essential differences between COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and asthma in terms of the symptoms and the findings. It is the most modern table available in Germany that differentiates between the two diseases.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.