Guidelines

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

STOCKHOLM – Weight loss should be a co–primary management goal for type 2 diabetes in adults, according to a new comprehensive joint consensus report from the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association.

And while metformin is still recommended as first-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes with no other comorbidities, the statement expands the indications for use of other agents or combinations of agents as initial therapy for subgroups of patients, as part of individualized and patient-centered decision-making.

Last updated in 2019, the new “Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes” statement also places increased emphasis on social determinants of health, incorporates recent clinical trial data for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists to broaden recommendations for cardiorenal protection, and discusses health behaviors such as sleep and sitting. It also targets a wider audience than in the past by addressing health system organization to optimize delivery of diabetes care.

The new statement was presented during a 90-minute session at the annual meeting of the EASD, with 12 of its 14 European and American authors as presenters. The document was simultaneously published in Diabetologia and Diabetes Care.

During the discussion, panel member Jennifer Brigitte Green, MD, commented: “Many of these recommendations are not new. They’re modest revisions of recommendations that have been in place for years, but we know that actual implementation rates of use of these drugs in patients with established comorbidities are very low.”

“I think it’s time for communities, health care systems, etc, to actually introduce these as expectations of care... to assess quality because unless it’s considered formally to be a requirement of care I just don’t think we’re going to move that needle very much,” added Dr. Green, who is professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Vanita R. Aroda, MD, of the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commented: “In the past, sometimes these recommendations created fodder for debate, but I don’t think this one will. It’s just really solidly evidence based, with the rationales presented throughout, including the figures. I think just having very clear evidence-based directions should support their dissemination and use.”
 

Weight management plays a prominent role in treatment

In an interview, writing panel cochair John B. Buse, MD, PhD, said: “We are saying that the four major components of type 2 diabetes care are glycemic management, cardiovascular risk management, weight management, and prevention of end-organ damage, particularly with regard to cardiorenal risk.”

“The weight management piece is much more explicit now,” said Dr. Buse, director of the Diabetes Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

He noted that recent evidence from the intensive lifestyle trial DiRECT, conducted in the United Kingdom, the bariatric surgery literature, and the emergence of potent weight-loss drugs have meant that “achieving 10%-15% body weight loss is now possible.

“So, aiming for remission is something that might be attractive to patients and providers. This could be based on weight management, with the [chosen] method based on shared decision-making.”

According to the new report: “Weight loss of 5%-10% confers metabolic improvement; weight loss of 10%-15% or more can have a disease-modifying effect and lead to remission of diabetes, defined as normal blood glucose levels for 3 months or more in the absence of pharmacological therapy in a 2021 consensus report.”

“Weight loss may exert benefits that extend beyond glycemic management to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life,” it adds.
 

Individualization featured throughout

The report’s sections cover principles of care, including the importance of diabetes self-management education and support and avoidance of therapeutic inertia. Detailed guidance addresses therapeutic options including lifestyle, weight management, and pharmacotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes.

Another entire section is devoted to personalizing treatment approaches based on individual characteristics, including new evidence from cardiorenal outcomes studies for SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists that have come out since the last consensus report.

The document advises: “Consider initial combination therapy with glucose-lowering agents, especially in those with high [hemoglobin] A1c at diagnosis (that is, > 70 mmol/mol [> 8.5%]), in younger people with type 2 diabetes (regardless of A1c), and in those in whom a stepwise approach would delay access to agents that provide cardiorenal protection beyond their glucose-lowering effects.”
 

Designed to be used and user-friendly

Under the “Putting it all together: strategies for implementation” section, several lists of “practical tips for clinicians” are provided for many of the topics covered.

A series of colorful infographics are included as well, addressing the “decision cycle for person-centered glycemic management in type 2 diabetes,” including a chart summarizing characteristics of available glucose-lowering medications, including cardiorenal protection.

Also mentioned is the importance of 24-hour physical behaviors (including sleep, sitting, and sweating) and the impact on cardiometabolic health, use of a “holistic person-centered approach” to type 2 diabetes management, and an algorithm on insulin use.

Dr. Buse has financial ties to numerous drug and device companies. Dr. Green is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Anji, Vertex/ICON, and Valo. Dr. Aroda has served as a consultant for Applied Therapeutics, Duke, Fractyl, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

Doctors caring for patients taking steroids now have broader flexibility for which drugs to use to prevent osteoporosis associated with the medications.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released an updated guideline that advises treatment providers on when and how long to prescribe therapies that prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). Since the ACR last updated the guideline in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved new treatments for osteoporosis, which are now included in the recommendations.

The new guideline also advises physicians that they may need to transition patients to a second treatment after concluding a first course – so-called sequential therapy – to better protect them against bone loss and fracture. It also offers detailed instructions for which drugs to use, when, and how long these medications should be administered for patients taking glucocorticoids over a long period of time.

The guideline’s inclusion of sequential therapy is significant and will be helpful to practicing clinicians, according to S.B. Tanner IV, MD, director of the Osteoporosis Clinic at Vanderbilt Health, Nashville, Tenn.

“For the first time, the ACR has offered guidance for starting and stopping treatments,” Dr. Tanner said. “This guideline supports awareness that osteoporosis is lifelong – something that will consistently need monitoring.”

An estimated 2.5 million Americans use glucocorticoids, according to a 2013 study in Arthritis Care & Research. Meanwhile, a 2019 study of residents in Denmark found 3% of people in the country were prescribed glucocorticoids annually. That study estimated 54% of glucocorticoid users were female and found the percentage of people taking glucocorticoids increased with age.

Glucocorticoids are used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions, from multiple sclerosis to lupus, and often are prescribed to transplant patients to prevent their immune systems from rejecting new organs. When taken over time these medications can cause osteoporosis, which in turn raises the risk of fracture.

More than 10% of patients who receive long-term glucocorticoid treatment are diagnosed with clinical fractures. In addition, even low-dose glucocorticoid therapy is associated with a bone loss rate of 10% per year for a patient.

Osteoporosis prevention

After stopping some prevention therapies for GIOP, a high risk of bone loss or fracture still persists, according to Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center for the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co-principal investigator of the new guideline.

“We wanted to be sure the need for sequential treatment is adequately communicated, including to patients who might not know they need to start a second medication,” Dr. Russell said.

Physicians and patients must be aware that when completing a course of one GIOP treatment, another drug for the condition should be started, as specified in the guideline.

“Early intervention can prevent glucocorticoid-induced fractures that can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality,” said Mary Beth Humphrey, MD, PhD, interim vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City and co-principal investigator of the ACR guideline.

Anyone can fracture

While age and other risk factors, including menopause, increase the risk of developing GIOP, bone loss can occur rapidly for a patient of any age.

Even a glucocorticoid dose as low as 2.5 mg will increase the risk of vertebral fractures, with some occurring as soon as 3 months after treatment starts, Dr. Humphrey said. For patients taking up to 7.5 mg daily, the risk of vertebral fracture doubles. Doses greater than 10 mg daily for more than 3 months raise the likelihood of a vertebral fracture by a factor of 14, and result in a 300% increase in the likelihood of hip fractures, according to Dr. Humphrey.

“When on steroids, even patients with high bone density scores can fracture,” Dr. Tanner said. “The 2017 guideline was almost too elaborate in its effort to calculate risk. The updated guideline acknowledges moderate risk and suggests that this is a group of patients who need treatment.”
 

Rank ordering adds flexibility

The updated ACR guideline no longer ranks medications based on patient fracture data, side effects, cost care, and whether the drug is provided through injection, pill, or IV.

All of the preventive treatments the panel recommends reduce the risk of steroid-induced bone loss, Dr. Humphrey said.

“We thought the 2017 guideline was too restrictive,” Dr. Russell said. “We’re giving physicians and patients more leeway to choose a medication based on their preferences.”

Patient preference of delivery mechanism – such as a desire for pills only – can now be weighed more heavily into drug treatment decisions.

“In the exam room, there are three dynamics going on: What the patient wants, what the doctor knows is most effective, and what the insurer will pay,” Dr. Tanner said. “Doing away with rank ordering opens up the conversation beyond cost to consider all those factors.”

The guideline team conducted a systematic literature review for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2017 guideline, and for questions on new pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential and combination therapy. The voting panel consisted of two patient representatives and 13 experts representing adult and pediatric rheumatology and endocrinology, nephrology, and gastroenterology.

A full manuscript has been submitted for publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research for peer review, and is expected to publish in early 2023.

Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Russell, the co-principal investigators for the guideline, and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tanner reported a current research grant funded by Amgen through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and being a paid course instructor for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry bone density course, Osteoporosis Essentials.

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

Doctors caring for patients taking steroids now have broader flexibility for which drugs to use to prevent osteoporosis associated with the medications.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released an updated guideline that advises treatment providers on when and how long to prescribe therapies that prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). Since the ACR last updated the guideline in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved new treatments for osteoporosis, which are now included in the recommendations.

The new guideline also advises physicians that they may need to transition patients to a second treatment after concluding a first course – so-called sequential therapy – to better protect them against bone loss and fracture. It also offers detailed instructions for which drugs to use, when, and how long these medications should be administered for patients taking glucocorticoids over a long period of time.

The guideline’s inclusion of sequential therapy is significant and will be helpful to practicing clinicians, according to S.B. Tanner IV, MD, director of the Osteoporosis Clinic at Vanderbilt Health, Nashville, Tenn.

“For the first time, the ACR has offered guidance for starting and stopping treatments,” Dr. Tanner said. “This guideline supports awareness that osteoporosis is lifelong – something that will consistently need monitoring.”

An estimated 2.5 million Americans use glucocorticoids, according to a 2013 study in Arthritis Care & Research. Meanwhile, a 2019 study of residents in Denmark found 3% of people in the country were prescribed glucocorticoids annually. That study estimated 54% of glucocorticoid users were female and found the percentage of people taking glucocorticoids increased with age.

Glucocorticoids are used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions, from multiple sclerosis to lupus, and often are prescribed to transplant patients to prevent their immune systems from rejecting new organs. When taken over time these medications can cause osteoporosis, which in turn raises the risk of fracture.

More than 10% of patients who receive long-term glucocorticoid treatment are diagnosed with clinical fractures. In addition, even low-dose glucocorticoid therapy is associated with a bone loss rate of 10% per year for a patient.

Osteoporosis prevention

After stopping some prevention therapies for GIOP, a high risk of bone loss or fracture still persists, according to Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center for the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co-principal investigator of the new guideline.

“We wanted to be sure the need for sequential treatment is adequately communicated, including to patients who might not know they need to start a second medication,” Dr. Russell said.

Physicians and patients must be aware that when completing a course of one GIOP treatment, another drug for the condition should be started, as specified in the guideline.

“Early intervention can prevent glucocorticoid-induced fractures that can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality,” said Mary Beth Humphrey, MD, PhD, interim vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City and co-principal investigator of the ACR guideline.

Anyone can fracture

While age and other risk factors, including menopause, increase the risk of developing GIOP, bone loss can occur rapidly for a patient of any age.

Even a glucocorticoid dose as low as 2.5 mg will increase the risk of vertebral fractures, with some occurring as soon as 3 months after treatment starts, Dr. Humphrey said. For patients taking up to 7.5 mg daily, the risk of vertebral fracture doubles. Doses greater than 10 mg daily for more than 3 months raise the likelihood of a vertebral fracture by a factor of 14, and result in a 300% increase in the likelihood of hip fractures, according to Dr. Humphrey.

“When on steroids, even patients with high bone density scores can fracture,” Dr. Tanner said. “The 2017 guideline was almost too elaborate in its effort to calculate risk. The updated guideline acknowledges moderate risk and suggests that this is a group of patients who need treatment.”
 

Rank ordering adds flexibility

The updated ACR guideline no longer ranks medications based on patient fracture data, side effects, cost care, and whether the drug is provided through injection, pill, or IV.

All of the preventive treatments the panel recommends reduce the risk of steroid-induced bone loss, Dr. Humphrey said.

“We thought the 2017 guideline was too restrictive,” Dr. Russell said. “We’re giving physicians and patients more leeway to choose a medication based on their preferences.”

Patient preference of delivery mechanism – such as a desire for pills only – can now be weighed more heavily into drug treatment decisions.

“In the exam room, there are three dynamics going on: What the patient wants, what the doctor knows is most effective, and what the insurer will pay,” Dr. Tanner said. “Doing away with rank ordering opens up the conversation beyond cost to consider all those factors.”

The guideline team conducted a systematic literature review for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2017 guideline, and for questions on new pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential and combination therapy. The voting panel consisted of two patient representatives and 13 experts representing adult and pediatric rheumatology and endocrinology, nephrology, and gastroenterology.

A full manuscript has been submitted for publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research for peer review, and is expected to publish in early 2023.

Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Russell, the co-principal investigators for the guideline, and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tanner reported a current research grant funded by Amgen through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and being a paid course instructor for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry bone density course, Osteoporosis Essentials.

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

Doctors caring for patients taking steroids now have broader flexibility for which drugs to use to prevent osteoporosis associated with the medications.

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) has released an updated guideline that advises treatment providers on when and how long to prescribe therapies that prevent or treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). Since the ACR last updated the guideline in 2017, the Food and Drug Administration has approved new treatments for osteoporosis, which are now included in the recommendations.

The new guideline also advises physicians that they may need to transition patients to a second treatment after concluding a first course – so-called sequential therapy – to better protect them against bone loss and fracture. It also offers detailed instructions for which drugs to use, when, and how long these medications should be administered for patients taking glucocorticoids over a long period of time.

The guideline’s inclusion of sequential therapy is significant and will be helpful to practicing clinicians, according to S.B. Tanner IV, MD, director of the Osteoporosis Clinic at Vanderbilt Health, Nashville, Tenn.

“For the first time, the ACR has offered guidance for starting and stopping treatments,” Dr. Tanner said. “This guideline supports awareness that osteoporosis is lifelong – something that will consistently need monitoring.”

An estimated 2.5 million Americans use glucocorticoids, according to a 2013 study in Arthritis Care & Research. Meanwhile, a 2019 study of residents in Denmark found 3% of people in the country were prescribed glucocorticoids annually. That study estimated 54% of glucocorticoid users were female and found the percentage of people taking glucocorticoids increased with age.

Glucocorticoids are used to treat a variety of inflammatory conditions, from multiple sclerosis to lupus, and often are prescribed to transplant patients to prevent their immune systems from rejecting new organs. When taken over time these medications can cause osteoporosis, which in turn raises the risk of fracture.

More than 10% of patients who receive long-term glucocorticoid treatment are diagnosed with clinical fractures. In addition, even low-dose glucocorticoid therapy is associated with a bone loss rate of 10% per year for a patient.

Osteoporosis prevention

After stopping some prevention therapies for GIOP, a high risk of bone loss or fracture still persists, according to Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center for the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, and co-principal investigator of the new guideline.

“We wanted to be sure the need for sequential treatment is adequately communicated, including to patients who might not know they need to start a second medication,” Dr. Russell said.

Physicians and patients must be aware that when completing a course of one GIOP treatment, another drug for the condition should be started, as specified in the guideline.

“Early intervention can prevent glucocorticoid-induced fractures that can lead to substantial morbidity and increased mortality,” said Mary Beth Humphrey, MD, PhD, interim vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City and co-principal investigator of the ACR guideline.

Anyone can fracture

While age and other risk factors, including menopause, increase the risk of developing GIOP, bone loss can occur rapidly for a patient of any age.

Even a glucocorticoid dose as low as 2.5 mg will increase the risk of vertebral fractures, with some occurring as soon as 3 months after treatment starts, Dr. Humphrey said. For patients taking up to 7.5 mg daily, the risk of vertebral fracture doubles. Doses greater than 10 mg daily for more than 3 months raise the likelihood of a vertebral fracture by a factor of 14, and result in a 300% increase in the likelihood of hip fractures, according to Dr. Humphrey.

“When on steroids, even patients with high bone density scores can fracture,” Dr. Tanner said. “The 2017 guideline was almost too elaborate in its effort to calculate risk. The updated guideline acknowledges moderate risk and suggests that this is a group of patients who need treatment.”
 

Rank ordering adds flexibility

The updated ACR guideline no longer ranks medications based on patient fracture data, side effects, cost care, and whether the drug is provided through injection, pill, or IV.

All of the preventive treatments the panel recommends reduce the risk of steroid-induced bone loss, Dr. Humphrey said.

“We thought the 2017 guideline was too restrictive,” Dr. Russell said. “We’re giving physicians and patients more leeway to choose a medication based on their preferences.”

Patient preference of delivery mechanism – such as a desire for pills only – can now be weighed more heavily into drug treatment decisions.

“In the exam room, there are three dynamics going on: What the patient wants, what the doctor knows is most effective, and what the insurer will pay,” Dr. Tanner said. “Doing away with rank ordering opens up the conversation beyond cost to consider all those factors.”

The guideline team conducted a systematic literature review for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2017 guideline, and for questions on new pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential and combination therapy. The voting panel consisted of two patient representatives and 13 experts representing adult and pediatric rheumatology and endocrinology, nephrology, and gastroenterology.

A full manuscript has been submitted for publication in Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care and Research for peer review, and is expected to publish in early 2023.

Dr. Humphrey and Dr. Russell, the co-principal investigators for the guideline, and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tanner reported a current research grant funded by Amgen through the University of Alabama at Birmingham and being a paid course instructor for the International Society for Clinical Densitometry bone density course, Osteoporosis Essentials.

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

In some cases, bruising or bleeding from bleeding disorders may look like signs of child abuse, but new guidance may help clinicians distinguish one from the other.

On Sept. 19 the American Academy of Pediatrics published two reports – a clinical report and a technical report – in the October 2022 issue of Pediatrics on evaluating for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.

The reports were written by the AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and the AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
 

One doesn’t rule out the other

The reports emphasize that laboratory testing of bleeding cannot always rule out abuse, just as a history of trauma (accidental or nonaccidental) may not rule out a bleeding disorder or other medical condition.

In the clinical report, led by James Anderst, MD, MSCI, with the division of child adversity and resilience, Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri–Kansas City, the researchers note that infants are at especially high risk of abusive bruising/bleeding, but bleeding disorders may also present in infancy.

The authors give an example of a situation when taking a thorough history won’t necessarily rule out a bleeding disorder: Male infants who have been circumcised with no significant bleeding issues may still have a bleeding disorder. Therefore, laboratory evaluations are often needed to detect disordered bleeding.

Children’s medications should be documented, the authors note, because certain drugs, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, some antibiotics, antiepileptics, and herbal supplements, can affect tests that might be used to detect bleeding disorders.

Likewise, asking about restrictive or unusual diets or alternative therapies is important as some could increase the likelihood of bleeding/bruising.

Signs that bleeding disorder is not likely

The authors advise that, if a child has any of the following, an evaluation for a bleeding disorder is generally not needed:

• Caregivers’ description of trauma sufficiently explains the bruising.
• The child or an independent witness can provide a history of abuse or nonabusive trauma that explains the bruising.
• The outline of the bruising follows an object or hand pattern.
• The location of the bruising is on the ears, neck, or genitals.

“Bruising to the ears, neck, or genitals is rarely seen in either accidental injuries or in children with bleeding disorders,” the authors write.

Specification of which locations for injuries are more indicative of abuse in both mobile and immobile children was among the most important information from the paper, Seattle pediatrician Timothy Joos, MD, said in an interview.

Also very helpful, he said, was the listing of which tests should be done if bruising looks like potential abuse.

The authors write that if bruising is concerning for abuse that necessitates evaluation for bleeding disorders, the following tests should be done: PT (prothrombin time); aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time); von Willebrand Factor (VWF) activity (Ristocetin cofactor); factor VIII activity level; factor IX activity level; and a complete blood count, including platelets.

“I think that’s what a lot of us suspected, but there’s not a lot of summary evidence regarding that until now,” Dr. Joos said.

Case-by-case decisions on when to test

The decision on whether to evaluate for a bleeding disorder may be made case by case.

If there is no obvious known trauma or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), particularly subdural hematoma (SDH) in a nonmobile child, abuse should be suspected, the authors write.

They acknowledge that children can have ICH, such as a small SDH or an epidural hematoma, under the point of impact from a short fall.

“However,” the authors write, “short falls rarely result in significant brain injury.”

Conditions may affect screening tests

Screening tests for bleeding disorders can be falsely positive or falsely negative, the authors caution in the technical report, led by Shannon Carpenter, MD, MS, with the department of pediatrics, University of Missouri–Kansas City.

• If coagulation laboratory test specimens sit in a hot metal box all day, for instance, factor levels may be falsely low, the authors explain.
• Conversely, factors such as VWF and factor VIII are acute-phase reactants and factor levels will be deceptively high if blood specimens are taken in a stressful time.
• Patients who have a traumatic brain injury often show temporary coagulopathy that does not signal a congenital disorder.

Vitamin K deficiency

The technical report explains that if an infant, typically younger than 6 months, presents with bleeding/bruising that raises flags for abuse and has a long PT, clinicians should confirm vitamin K was provided at birth and/or testing for vitamin K deficiency should be performed.

Not all states require vitamin K to be administered at birth and some parents refuse it. Deficiency can lead to bleeding in the skin or from mucosal surfaces from circumcision, generalized ecchymoses, and large intramuscular hemorrhages or ICH.

When infants don’t get vitamin K at birth, vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) is seen most often in the first days of life, the technical report states. It can also occur 1-3 months after birth.

“Late VKDB occurs from the first month to 3 months after birth,” the authors write. “This deficiency is more prevalent in breast-fed babies, because human milk contains less vitamin K than does cow milk.”

Overall, the authors write, extensive lab tests are usually not necessary, given the rarity of most bleeding disorders and specific clinical factors that decrease the odds that a bleeding disorder caused the child’s findings.

Dr. Joos said the decisions described in this paper are the kind that can keep pediatricians up at night.

“Any kind of guidance is helpful in these difficult cases,” he said. “These are scenarios that can often happen in the middle of the night, and you’re often struggling with evidence or past experience that can help you make some of these decisions.”

Authors of the reports and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

In some cases, bruising or bleeding from bleeding disorders may look like signs of child abuse, but new guidance may help clinicians distinguish one from the other.

On Sept. 19 the American Academy of Pediatrics published two reports – a clinical report and a technical report – in the October 2022 issue of Pediatrics on evaluating for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.

The reports were written by the AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and the AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
 

One doesn’t rule out the other

The reports emphasize that laboratory testing of bleeding cannot always rule out abuse, just as a history of trauma (accidental or nonaccidental) may not rule out a bleeding disorder or other medical condition.

In the clinical report, led by James Anderst, MD, MSCI, with the division of child adversity and resilience, Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri–Kansas City, the researchers note that infants are at especially high risk of abusive bruising/bleeding, but bleeding disorders may also present in infancy.

The authors give an example of a situation when taking a thorough history won’t necessarily rule out a bleeding disorder: Male infants who have been circumcised with no significant bleeding issues may still have a bleeding disorder. Therefore, laboratory evaluations are often needed to detect disordered bleeding.

Children’s medications should be documented, the authors note, because certain drugs, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, some antibiotics, antiepileptics, and herbal supplements, can affect tests that might be used to detect bleeding disorders.

Likewise, asking about restrictive or unusual diets or alternative therapies is important as some could increase the likelihood of bleeding/bruising.

Signs that bleeding disorder is not likely

The authors advise that, if a child has any of the following, an evaluation for a bleeding disorder is generally not needed:

• Caregivers’ description of trauma sufficiently explains the bruising.
• The child or an independent witness can provide a history of abuse or nonabusive trauma that explains the bruising.
• The outline of the bruising follows an object or hand pattern.
• The location of the bruising is on the ears, neck, or genitals.

“Bruising to the ears, neck, or genitals is rarely seen in either accidental injuries or in children with bleeding disorders,” the authors write.

Specification of which locations for injuries are more indicative of abuse in both mobile and immobile children was among the most important information from the paper, Seattle pediatrician Timothy Joos, MD, said in an interview.

Also very helpful, he said, was the listing of which tests should be done if bruising looks like potential abuse.

The authors write that if bruising is concerning for abuse that necessitates evaluation for bleeding disorders, the following tests should be done: PT (prothrombin time); aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time); von Willebrand Factor (VWF) activity (Ristocetin cofactor); factor VIII activity level; factor IX activity level; and a complete blood count, including platelets.

“I think that’s what a lot of us suspected, but there’s not a lot of summary evidence regarding that until now,” Dr. Joos said.

Case-by-case decisions on when to test

The decision on whether to evaluate for a bleeding disorder may be made case by case.

If there is no obvious known trauma or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), particularly subdural hematoma (SDH) in a nonmobile child, abuse should be suspected, the authors write.

They acknowledge that children can have ICH, such as a small SDH or an epidural hematoma, under the point of impact from a short fall.

“However,” the authors write, “short falls rarely result in significant brain injury.”

Conditions may affect screening tests

Screening tests for bleeding disorders can be falsely positive or falsely negative, the authors caution in the technical report, led by Shannon Carpenter, MD, MS, with the department of pediatrics, University of Missouri–Kansas City.

• If coagulation laboratory test specimens sit in a hot metal box all day, for instance, factor levels may be falsely low, the authors explain.
• Conversely, factors such as VWF and factor VIII are acute-phase reactants and factor levels will be deceptively high if blood specimens are taken in a stressful time.
• Patients who have a traumatic brain injury often show temporary coagulopathy that does not signal a congenital disorder.

Vitamin K deficiency

The technical report explains that if an infant, typically younger than 6 months, presents with bleeding/bruising that raises flags for abuse and has a long PT, clinicians should confirm vitamin K was provided at birth and/or testing for vitamin K deficiency should be performed.

Not all states require vitamin K to be administered at birth and some parents refuse it. Deficiency can lead to bleeding in the skin or from mucosal surfaces from circumcision, generalized ecchymoses, and large intramuscular hemorrhages or ICH.

When infants don’t get vitamin K at birth, vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) is seen most often in the first days of life, the technical report states. It can also occur 1-3 months after birth.

“Late VKDB occurs from the first month to 3 months after birth,” the authors write. “This deficiency is more prevalent in breast-fed babies, because human milk contains less vitamin K than does cow milk.”

Overall, the authors write, extensive lab tests are usually not necessary, given the rarity of most bleeding disorders and specific clinical factors that decrease the odds that a bleeding disorder caused the child’s findings.

Dr. Joos said the decisions described in this paper are the kind that can keep pediatricians up at night.

“Any kind of guidance is helpful in these difficult cases,” he said. “These are scenarios that can often happen in the middle of the night, and you’re often struggling with evidence or past experience that can help you make some of these decisions.”

Authors of the reports and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

In some cases, bruising or bleeding from bleeding disorders may look like signs of child abuse, but new guidance may help clinicians distinguish one from the other.

On Sept. 19 the American Academy of Pediatrics published two reports – a clinical report and a technical report – in the October 2022 issue of Pediatrics on evaluating for bleeding disorders when child abuse is suspected.

The reports were written by the AAP Section on Hematology/Oncology and the AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect.
 

One doesn’t rule out the other

The reports emphasize that laboratory testing of bleeding cannot always rule out abuse, just as a history of trauma (accidental or nonaccidental) may not rule out a bleeding disorder or other medical condition.

In the clinical report, led by James Anderst, MD, MSCI, with the division of child adversity and resilience, Children’s Mercy Hospital, University of Missouri–Kansas City, the researchers note that infants are at especially high risk of abusive bruising/bleeding, but bleeding disorders may also present in infancy.

The authors give an example of a situation when taking a thorough history won’t necessarily rule out a bleeding disorder: Male infants who have been circumcised with no significant bleeding issues may still have a bleeding disorder. Therefore, laboratory evaluations are often needed to detect disordered bleeding.

Children’s medications should be documented, the authors note, because certain drugs, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, some antibiotics, antiepileptics, and herbal supplements, can affect tests that might be used to detect bleeding disorders.

Likewise, asking about restrictive or unusual diets or alternative therapies is important as some could increase the likelihood of bleeding/bruising.

Signs that bleeding disorder is not likely

The authors advise that, if a child has any of the following, an evaluation for a bleeding disorder is generally not needed:

• Caregivers’ description of trauma sufficiently explains the bruising.
• The child or an independent witness can provide a history of abuse or nonabusive trauma that explains the bruising.
• The outline of the bruising follows an object or hand pattern.
• The location of the bruising is on the ears, neck, or genitals.

“Bruising to the ears, neck, or genitals is rarely seen in either accidental injuries or in children with bleeding disorders,” the authors write.

Specification of which locations for injuries are more indicative of abuse in both mobile and immobile children was among the most important information from the paper, Seattle pediatrician Timothy Joos, MD, said in an interview.

Also very helpful, he said, was the listing of which tests should be done if bruising looks like potential abuse.

The authors write that if bruising is concerning for abuse that necessitates evaluation for bleeding disorders, the following tests should be done: PT (prothrombin time); aPTT (activated partial thromboplastin time); von Willebrand Factor (VWF) activity (Ristocetin cofactor); factor VIII activity level; factor IX activity level; and a complete blood count, including platelets.

“I think that’s what a lot of us suspected, but there’s not a lot of summary evidence regarding that until now,” Dr. Joos said.

Case-by-case decisions on when to test

The decision on whether to evaluate for a bleeding disorder may be made case by case.

If there is no obvious known trauma or intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), particularly subdural hematoma (SDH) in a nonmobile child, abuse should be suspected, the authors write.

They acknowledge that children can have ICH, such as a small SDH or an epidural hematoma, under the point of impact from a short fall.

“However,” the authors write, “short falls rarely result in significant brain injury.”

Conditions may affect screening tests

Screening tests for bleeding disorders can be falsely positive or falsely negative, the authors caution in the technical report, led by Shannon Carpenter, MD, MS, with the department of pediatrics, University of Missouri–Kansas City.

• If coagulation laboratory test specimens sit in a hot metal box all day, for instance, factor levels may be falsely low, the authors explain.
• Conversely, factors such as VWF and factor VIII are acute-phase reactants and factor levels will be deceptively high if blood specimens are taken in a stressful time.
• Patients who have a traumatic brain injury often show temporary coagulopathy that does not signal a congenital disorder.

Vitamin K deficiency

The technical report explains that if an infant, typically younger than 6 months, presents with bleeding/bruising that raises flags for abuse and has a long PT, clinicians should confirm vitamin K was provided at birth and/or testing for vitamin K deficiency should be performed.

Not all states require vitamin K to be administered at birth and some parents refuse it. Deficiency can lead to bleeding in the skin or from mucosal surfaces from circumcision, generalized ecchymoses, and large intramuscular hemorrhages or ICH.

When infants don’t get vitamin K at birth, vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) is seen most often in the first days of life, the technical report states. It can also occur 1-3 months after birth.

“Late VKDB occurs from the first month to 3 months after birth,” the authors write. “This deficiency is more prevalent in breast-fed babies, because human milk contains less vitamin K than does cow milk.”

Overall, the authors write, extensive lab tests are usually not necessary, given the rarity of most bleeding disorders and specific clinical factors that decrease the odds that a bleeding disorder caused the child’s findings.

Dr. Joos said the decisions described in this paper are the kind that can keep pediatricians up at night.

“Any kind of guidance is helpful in these difficult cases,” he said. “These are scenarios that can often happen in the middle of the night, and you’re often struggling with evidence or past experience that can help you make some of these decisions.”

Authors of the reports and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association have issued a set of data standards for chest pain and acute myocardial infarction to accompany the 2021 guidelines for evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

In October 2021, the AHA/ACC issued a joint clinical practice guideline encouraging clinicians to use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain, as reported by this news organization.

The writing group underscored the need to reach a consensus for the definitions of chest pain. The new document standardizes related data elements for consistent reporting on chest pain syndromes.

“This is an appendix to the guidelines and a planned effort to try to harmonize and bring uniformity to the language applied,” writing committee chair H.V. “Skip” Anderson, MD, with UT Health Science Center, Houston, told this news organization.

“You want heart attack to mean the same thing in Miami Beach as in Western Pennsylvania, as in Oregon and Washington and every place in between,” Dr. Anderson explained. “You want everybody to be using the same language, so that’s what these data standards are meant to do.”

In the document, data elements are grouped into three broad categories: chest pain, myocardial injury, and MI.

“We deliberately followed the plans contained in the new guideline and focused on potentially serious cardiovascular causes of chest pain as might be encountered in emergency departments,” the writing group notes in the document.

The terms “typical” and “atypical” as descriptors of chest pain or anginal syndromes are not used in the new document, in line with the 2021 guidance to abandon these terms.

Instead, the new document divides chest pain syndromes into three categories: “cardiac,” “possible cardiac,” and “noncardiac” – again, in keeping with the chest pain guideline.

The document also includes data elements for risk stratification scoring according to several common risk scoring algorithms and for procedure-related myocardial injury and procedure-related MI.

Each year, chest pain sends more than 7 million adults to the emergency department in the United States. Although noncardiac causes of chest pain make up a large majority of these cases, there are several life-threatening causes of chest pain that must be identified and treated promptly.

Distinguishing between serious and nonserious causes of chest pain is an urgent imperative, the writing group says.

Overall, they say this new clinical lexicon and set of data standards should be “broadly applicable” in various settings, including clinical trials and observational studies, patient care, electronic health records (EHRs), quality and performance improvement initiatives, registries, and public reporting programs.

The 2022 ACC/AHA Key Data Elements and Definitions for Chest Pain and Acute Myocardial Infarction was simultaneously published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It was developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and endorsed by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Dr. Anderson noted that “almost all of the guidelines that come out now, certainly in the last few years, have been followed after a certain interval by a set of data standards applicable to the guidelines.”

“It would be really great if it could actually be attached as an appendix, but the nature of the development of these things is such that there will always be a bit of a time lag between the writing group that develops the guidelines and the work group that develops the data standards; you can’t really have them working in parallel at the same time,” Dr. Anderson said in an interview.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

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

Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.

Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.

The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.

First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.

Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.

Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.

Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.

Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.

Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).

Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.

Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.

“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
 

Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.

Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.

The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.

First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.

Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.

Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.

Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.

Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.

Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).

Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.

Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.

“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
 

Endoscopy plays an integral role in the evaluation and management of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Gastroenterology.

Acute pancreatitis remains the leading cause of inpatient care among gastrointestinal conditions, with about 10%-30% of patients developing recurrent acute pancreatitis, wrote co–first authors Daniel Strand, MD, from the University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, and Ryan J. Law, MD, from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues. About 35% of patients with recurrent acute pancreatitis will progress to chronic pancreatitis. Both conditions are associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

“Interventions aimed to better evaluate, mitigate the progression of, and treat symptoms related to [acute pancreatitis] and [chronic pancreatitis] are critical to improve patients’ quality of life and other long-term outcomes,” the authors of the expert review wrote.

The authors reviewed randomized controlled trials, observational studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and expert consensus in the field to develop eight clinical practice advice statements.

First, when the initial evaluation reveals no clear explanation for acute or recurrent pancreatitis, endoscopic ultrasound is the preferred diagnostic test. The authors noted that, although there isn’t a concretely defined optimal timing for EUS defined, most experts advise a short delay of 2-6 weeks after resolution of acute pancreatitis. MRI with contrast and cholangiopancreatography can be a reasonable complementary or alternative test, based on local expertise and availability.

Second, the role of ERCP remains controversial for reducing the frequency of acute pancreatitis episodes in patients with pancreas divisum, the most common congenital pancreatic anomaly, the authors wrote. However, minor papilla endotherapy may be useful, particularly for those with objective signs of outflow obstruction, such as a dilated dorsal pancreatic duct or santorinicele. However, there is no role for ERCP in treating pain alone in patients with pancreas divisum.

Third, ERCP remains even more controversial for reducing the frequency of pancreatitis episodes in patients with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis and standard pancreatic ductal anatomy, according to the authors. It should only be considered after a comprehensive discussion of the uncertain benefits and potentially severe procedure-related adverse events. When used, ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy alone may be preferable to dual sphincterotomy.

Fourth, for long-term treatment of patients with painful obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical intervention should be considered over endoscopic therapy, the study authors wrote. Pain is the most common symptom and important driver of impaired quality of life in patients with chronic pancreatitis, among whom a subset will be affected by intraductal hypertension from an obstructed pancreatic duct. The authors noted that endoscopic intervention remains a reasonable alternative to surgery for suboptimal operative candidates or patients who want a less-invasive approach, as long as they are clearly informed that the best practice advice primarily favors surgery.

Fifth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct stones, small main pancreatic duct stones of 5 mm or less can be treated with pancreatography and conventional stone extraction maneuvers. For larger stones, however, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or pancreatoscopy with intraductal lithotripsy can be considered, although the former is not widely available in the United States and the success rates for the latter vary.

Sixth, when using ERCP for pancreatic duct strictures, prolonged stent therapy for 6-12 months is effective for treating symptoms and remodeling main pancreatic duct strictures. The preferred approach is to place and sequentially add multiple plastic stents in parallel, or up-sizing. Emerging evidence suggests that fully covered self-expanding metal stents may be useful in this case, but additional research is needed. For example, one study suggested that patients treated with these self-expanding stents required fewer ERCPs, but their adverse event rate was significantly higher (39% vs. 14%).

Seventh, ERCP with stent insertion is the preferred treatment for benign biliary stricture caused by chronic pancreatitis. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents are favored over placing multiple plastic stents when feasible, given the similar efficacy but significantly lower need for stent exchange procedures during the treatment course.

Eighth, celiac plexus block shouldn’t be routinely performed for the management of pain caused by chronic pancreatitis. Celiac plexus block could be considered in certain patients on a case-by-case basis if they have debilitating pain that hasn’t responded to other therapeutic measures. However, this should only be considered after a discussion about the unclear outcomes and its procedural risks.

“Given the current lack of evidence, additional well-designed prospective comparative studies are needed to support a more unified diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for the treatment of these complex cases,” the authors concluded.

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with companies such as Olympus America, Medtronic, and Microtech.
 

Caring for patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) requires a multidisciplinary approach involving dietitians, nurses, surgeons, gastroenterologists or internists, and social workers experienced in SBS care, according to a clinical practice update expert review from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Kishore Iyer, MD, from Mount Sinai Hospital New York; John K. DiBaise, MD, from Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, developed 12 best practice advice statements based on available evidence. The items focus on adult patients with SBS; however, there was some overlap with the management of pediatric SBS. The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Defining SBS

One update concerns defining SBS. The authors recommend that surgeons performing massive resections should report the residual bowel length, rather than the length of bowel resected.

“It is only the former that dictates outcome,” they wrote.

There is general agreement that a residual small intestinal length of 200 cm or less meets criteria for SBS. Measurement should be taken from “along the antimesenteric border of unstretched bowel, from the duodenojejunal flexure to the ileocecal junction, the site of any small bowel–colon anastomosis, or to the end-ostomy.”

Based on the residual bowel length, patients can be classified into three groups: end-jejunostomy, jejuno-colic, and jejuno-ileo-colic.
 

Assessing nutritional status

A dietitian experienced in SBS should perform a thorough nutritional assessment on all SBS patients. Long-term monitoring should include laboratory studies checking electrolytes and liver and kidney function, fluid balance, weight change, serum micronutrients, and bone density. Bone density should be repeated periodically, every 2-3 years.

Fluid and electrolyte problems may affect outcomes for SBS patients, particularly for those without a colon.
 

Adjusting diets

Most adult patients with SBS have significant malabsorption, so dietary intake “must be increased by at least 50% from their estimated needs,” the authors wrote. It’s best if the patient consumes the increased quantity throughout the day in 5-6 meals, they noted.

An experienced dietitian should counsel the patient based on the patient’s eating preferences. Incorporating preferences can help increase compliance with the adjustments that may become necessary based on symptoms, stool output, and weight.
 

Using pharmacologic therapy

Using antisecretory medications, including proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, helps reduce gastric secretions, the damage of acid on the upper gut mucosa, and the function of pancreatic exocrine enzymes.

Antidiarrheals reduce intestinal motility but also cause a slight reduction in intestinal secretion. Common agents include loperamide, diphenoxylate with atropine, codeine, and tincture of opium. The review authors say loperamide should get preference over opiate drugs because it is not addictive or sedative.

Use of antidiarrheals should be guided by their effect on stool output.

“Loperamide and codeine may have a synergistic effect when used together,” the authors wrote.

Clonidine, which can be given transdermally, has also shown some benefit in treating high-output stool losses, presumably because of its effects on intestinal motility and secretion.

Weighing risks and benefits of teduglutide

The glucagonlike peptide–2 teduglutide is of particular interest for its ability to help improve intestinal absorption and hopefully wean patients off parenteral nutrition and some will achieve enteral autonomy, the authors wrote. “The very short half-life of native GLP-2 has been extended to allow daily subcutaneous injection in the recombinant molecule, teduglutide.”

However, because teduglutide is a growth factor and can boost the growth of polyps and cancer, it is contraindicated in patients with active gastrointestinal malignancies. Patients should undergo colonoscopy before treatment and periodically thereafter, the authors advised. The benefits of its use in patients with nongastrointestinal malignancy should be weighed carefully with these risks.

“The significant side effects of teduglutide and the cost mandate that teduglutide is employed only after optimizing diet and the more conventional SBS treatments described previously in carefully selected patients with [short bowel syndrome–intestinal failure],” the authors wrote.
 

Dosing drugs effectively

Medications in tablet form need to dissolve before being absorbed. Most oral medications are absorbed within the proximal jejunum, so they can be used in patients with SBS.

“However,” the authors noted, “sustained- and delayed-release medications should be avoided.”

They suggested that, when applicable, alternatives such as liquids and topical medications should be considered, as should the monitoring of medication levels in the blood.

If a patient does not respond, approaches to consider may include increasing a dose, changing dose frequency, or changing drug formulation or route of administration, such as intravenous, subcutaneous, or transdermal.
 

Including parenteral nutrition and oral rehydration

Almost all patients with SBS will need parenteral nutrition (PN) support following resection, and few will be able to stop it before discharge from the hospital.

“Although more than 50% of adults with SBS are able to be weaned completely from PN within 5 years of diagnosis, the probability of eliminating PN use is less than 6% if not successfully accomplished in the first 2 years following the individual’s last bowel resection,” the authors wrote.

For long-term PN, tunneled central venous catheters are preferred over peripherally inserted central venous catheters because of the higher risk of thrombosis and issues related to self-administration of PN with the central catheters. Also, tunneled catheters are preferred over totally implanted devices, or ports, for long-term patients because the main benefit of the port is not realized given that the device needs to be continually accessed and exchanged weekly.

“When calculating PN volume and content, changes in the patient’s weight, laboratory results, stool or ostomy output, urine output, and complaints of thirst should be monitored,” the authors noted.

The authors also discussed oral rehydration solution because patients lose more water and sodium from their stoma than they take in by mouth. Careful consideration of the glucose and sodium levels in oral fluids is important because inappropriate fluids will exacerbate fluid losses in SBS. For example, hypotonic (including water, tea, coffee, alcohol) and hypertonic (including fruit juices and sodas) solutions should be limited.

“A major misconception on the part of patients is that they should drink large quantities of water; however, this generally leads to an increase in ostomy output and creates a vicious cycle further exacerbating fluid and electrolyte disturbances,” they wrote, instead advising glucose–electrolyte rehydration solution to enhance absorption and reduce secretion.
 

Preventing complications

“A knowledge of these complications is critical for those caring for these patients to be able to not only identify and treat them when they occur but also to prevent their occurrence whenever possible,” the authors wrote. Although they considered it beyond the scope of the review to outline every complication, they indicated some complications and management strategies via an included table. These complications can include cirrhosis, osteoporosis, acute kidney disease, and central venous catheter–related infection or occlusion.

Considering further surgery or intestinal transplantation

The authors noted that any further surgery should be carefully considered, with the following three contexts having possible value: “(1) to recruit unused distal bowel, (2) to augment the function of residual bowel through specific lengthening and tapering operations, or (3) to slow intestinal transit.”

Surgeons involved in managing SBS may need to confront complex intra-abdominal problems such as massive desmoid tumors, mesenteric ischemia, or complex enterocutaneous fistulae; a multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation team may be better able to help these patients. The authors noted that care for patients starts even before the first operation, by taking every measure to avoid massive bowel resection and the resulting SBS.

The authors noted the importance of early referral for intestinal transplantation consideration for patients with refractory dependency on parenteral nutrition or even onset of parenteral nutrition failure, which refers to complications such as intestinal failure–associated liver disease.

“At present, nearly 50% of patients being considered for ITX are also requiring simultaneous liver replacement, indicating late referral for ITX,” they wrote, citing a data from a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

They also noted that data have shown short- and medium-term outcomes are steadily improving; however, long-term outcomes have been challenged by opportunistic infections, long-term graft attrition, and other impediments that may be preventing early referral for intestinal transplantation.
 

Educating patients, caregivers

Long-term PN may restrict activity for patients, but patients and caregivers should know about some modifications.

One is to cycle the PN over 10-14 hours overnight to allow freedom from the infusion pump during the day. Infusion pumps can be programmable, and some can be carried in a backpack for infusing during the day.

Authors recommend patient support groups, such as the Oley Foundation, which can help with issues surrounding body image and travel.

Because of the relative rarity of SBS, nonspecialist physicians may care for patients without a dedicated multidisciplinary team and may need education support in managing patients with complex care needs. One source the authors recommend is the Learn Intestinal Failure Tele-ECHO (Expanding Community Healthcare Outcomes) (LIFT-ECHO) project. The LIFT-ECHO project has become an online educational community with case-based learning in SBS, intestinal failure, and PN.

The authors disclose relationships with Takeda, Zealand, VectivBio, Napo, and Hanmi.

Caring for patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) requires a multidisciplinary approach involving dietitians, nurses, surgeons, gastroenterologists or internists, and social workers experienced in SBS care, according to a clinical practice update expert review from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Kishore Iyer, MD, from Mount Sinai Hospital New York; John K. DiBaise, MD, from Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, developed 12 best practice advice statements based on available evidence. The items focus on adult patients with SBS; however, there was some overlap with the management of pediatric SBS. The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Defining SBS

One update concerns defining SBS. The authors recommend that surgeons performing massive resections should report the residual bowel length, rather than the length of bowel resected.

“It is only the former that dictates outcome,” they wrote.

There is general agreement that a residual small intestinal length of 200 cm or less meets criteria for SBS. Measurement should be taken from “along the antimesenteric border of unstretched bowel, from the duodenojejunal flexure to the ileocecal junction, the site of any small bowel–colon anastomosis, or to the end-ostomy.”

Based on the residual bowel length, patients can be classified into three groups: end-jejunostomy, jejuno-colic, and jejuno-ileo-colic.
 

Assessing nutritional status

A dietitian experienced in SBS should perform a thorough nutritional assessment on all SBS patients. Long-term monitoring should include laboratory studies checking electrolytes and liver and kidney function, fluid balance, weight change, serum micronutrients, and bone density. Bone density should be repeated periodically, every 2-3 years.

Fluid and electrolyte problems may affect outcomes for SBS patients, particularly for those without a colon.
 

Adjusting diets

Most adult patients with SBS have significant malabsorption, so dietary intake “must be increased by at least 50% from their estimated needs,” the authors wrote. It’s best if the patient consumes the increased quantity throughout the day in 5-6 meals, they noted.

An experienced dietitian should counsel the patient based on the patient’s eating preferences. Incorporating preferences can help increase compliance with the adjustments that may become necessary based on symptoms, stool output, and weight.
 

Using pharmacologic therapy

Using antisecretory medications, including proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, helps reduce gastric secretions, the damage of acid on the upper gut mucosa, and the function of pancreatic exocrine enzymes.

Antidiarrheals reduce intestinal motility but also cause a slight reduction in intestinal secretion. Common agents include loperamide, diphenoxylate with atropine, codeine, and tincture of opium. The review authors say loperamide should get preference over opiate drugs because it is not addictive or sedative.

Use of antidiarrheals should be guided by their effect on stool output.

“Loperamide and codeine may have a synergistic effect when used together,” the authors wrote.

Clonidine, which can be given transdermally, has also shown some benefit in treating high-output stool losses, presumably because of its effects on intestinal motility and secretion.

Weighing risks and benefits of teduglutide

The glucagonlike peptide–2 teduglutide is of particular interest for its ability to help improve intestinal absorption and hopefully wean patients off parenteral nutrition and some will achieve enteral autonomy, the authors wrote. “The very short half-life of native GLP-2 has been extended to allow daily subcutaneous injection in the recombinant molecule, teduglutide.”

However, because teduglutide is a growth factor and can boost the growth of polyps and cancer, it is contraindicated in patients with active gastrointestinal malignancies. Patients should undergo colonoscopy before treatment and periodically thereafter, the authors advised. The benefits of its use in patients with nongastrointestinal malignancy should be weighed carefully with these risks.

“The significant side effects of teduglutide and the cost mandate that teduglutide is employed only after optimizing diet and the more conventional SBS treatments described previously in carefully selected patients with [short bowel syndrome–intestinal failure],” the authors wrote.
 

Dosing drugs effectively

Medications in tablet form need to dissolve before being absorbed. Most oral medications are absorbed within the proximal jejunum, so they can be used in patients with SBS.

“However,” the authors noted, “sustained- and delayed-release medications should be avoided.”

They suggested that, when applicable, alternatives such as liquids and topical medications should be considered, as should the monitoring of medication levels in the blood.

If a patient does not respond, approaches to consider may include increasing a dose, changing dose frequency, or changing drug formulation or route of administration, such as intravenous, subcutaneous, or transdermal.
 

Including parenteral nutrition and oral rehydration

Almost all patients with SBS will need parenteral nutrition (PN) support following resection, and few will be able to stop it before discharge from the hospital.

“Although more than 50% of adults with SBS are able to be weaned completely from PN within 5 years of diagnosis, the probability of eliminating PN use is less than 6% if not successfully accomplished in the first 2 years following the individual’s last bowel resection,” the authors wrote.

For long-term PN, tunneled central venous catheters are preferred over peripherally inserted central venous catheters because of the higher risk of thrombosis and issues related to self-administration of PN with the central catheters. Also, tunneled catheters are preferred over totally implanted devices, or ports, for long-term patients because the main benefit of the port is not realized given that the device needs to be continually accessed and exchanged weekly.

“When calculating PN volume and content, changes in the patient’s weight, laboratory results, stool or ostomy output, urine output, and complaints of thirst should be monitored,” the authors noted.

The authors also discussed oral rehydration solution because patients lose more water and sodium from their stoma than they take in by mouth. Careful consideration of the glucose and sodium levels in oral fluids is important because inappropriate fluids will exacerbate fluid losses in SBS. For example, hypotonic (including water, tea, coffee, alcohol) and hypertonic (including fruit juices and sodas) solutions should be limited.

“A major misconception on the part of patients is that they should drink large quantities of water; however, this generally leads to an increase in ostomy output and creates a vicious cycle further exacerbating fluid and electrolyte disturbances,” they wrote, instead advising glucose–electrolyte rehydration solution to enhance absorption and reduce secretion.
 

Preventing complications

“A knowledge of these complications is critical for those caring for these patients to be able to not only identify and treat them when they occur but also to prevent their occurrence whenever possible,” the authors wrote. Although they considered it beyond the scope of the review to outline every complication, they indicated some complications and management strategies via an included table. These complications can include cirrhosis, osteoporosis, acute kidney disease, and central venous catheter–related infection or occlusion.

Considering further surgery or intestinal transplantation

The authors noted that any further surgery should be carefully considered, with the following three contexts having possible value: “(1) to recruit unused distal bowel, (2) to augment the function of residual bowel through specific lengthening and tapering operations, or (3) to slow intestinal transit.”

Surgeons involved in managing SBS may need to confront complex intra-abdominal problems such as massive desmoid tumors, mesenteric ischemia, or complex enterocutaneous fistulae; a multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation team may be better able to help these patients. The authors noted that care for patients starts even before the first operation, by taking every measure to avoid massive bowel resection and the resulting SBS.

The authors noted the importance of early referral for intestinal transplantation consideration for patients with refractory dependency on parenteral nutrition or even onset of parenteral nutrition failure, which refers to complications such as intestinal failure–associated liver disease.

“At present, nearly 50% of patients being considered for ITX are also requiring simultaneous liver replacement, indicating late referral for ITX,” they wrote, citing a data from a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

They also noted that data have shown short- and medium-term outcomes are steadily improving; however, long-term outcomes have been challenged by opportunistic infections, long-term graft attrition, and other impediments that may be preventing early referral for intestinal transplantation.
 

Educating patients, caregivers

Long-term PN may restrict activity for patients, but patients and caregivers should know about some modifications.

One is to cycle the PN over 10-14 hours overnight to allow freedom from the infusion pump during the day. Infusion pumps can be programmable, and some can be carried in a backpack for infusing during the day.

Authors recommend patient support groups, such as the Oley Foundation, which can help with issues surrounding body image and travel.

Because of the relative rarity of SBS, nonspecialist physicians may care for patients without a dedicated multidisciplinary team and may need education support in managing patients with complex care needs. One source the authors recommend is the Learn Intestinal Failure Tele-ECHO (Expanding Community Healthcare Outcomes) (LIFT-ECHO) project. The LIFT-ECHO project has become an online educational community with case-based learning in SBS, intestinal failure, and PN.

The authors disclose relationships with Takeda, Zealand, VectivBio, Napo, and Hanmi.

Caring for patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) requires a multidisciplinary approach involving dietitians, nurses, surgeons, gastroenterologists or internists, and social workers experienced in SBS care, according to a clinical practice update expert review from the American Gastroenterological Association.

Kishore Iyer, MD, from Mount Sinai Hospital New York; John K. DiBaise, MD, from Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Alberto Rubio-Tapia, MD, from the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, developed 12 best practice advice statements based on available evidence. The items focus on adult patients with SBS; however, there was some overlap with the management of pediatric SBS. The review was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Defining SBS

One update concerns defining SBS. The authors recommend that surgeons performing massive resections should report the residual bowel length, rather than the length of bowel resected.

“It is only the former that dictates outcome,” they wrote.

There is general agreement that a residual small intestinal length of 200 cm or less meets criteria for SBS. Measurement should be taken from “along the antimesenteric border of unstretched bowel, from the duodenojejunal flexure to the ileocecal junction, the site of any small bowel–colon anastomosis, or to the end-ostomy.”

Based on the residual bowel length, patients can be classified into three groups: end-jejunostomy, jejuno-colic, and jejuno-ileo-colic.
 

Assessing nutritional status

A dietitian experienced in SBS should perform a thorough nutritional assessment on all SBS patients. Long-term monitoring should include laboratory studies checking electrolytes and liver and kidney function, fluid balance, weight change, serum micronutrients, and bone density. Bone density should be repeated periodically, every 2-3 years.

Fluid and electrolyte problems may affect outcomes for SBS patients, particularly for those without a colon.
 

Adjusting diets

Most adult patients with SBS have significant malabsorption, so dietary intake “must be increased by at least 50% from their estimated needs,” the authors wrote. It’s best if the patient consumes the increased quantity throughout the day in 5-6 meals, they noted.

An experienced dietitian should counsel the patient based on the patient’s eating preferences. Incorporating preferences can help increase compliance with the adjustments that may become necessary based on symptoms, stool output, and weight.
 

Using pharmacologic therapy

Using antisecretory medications, including proton pump inhibitors or histamine-2 receptor antagonists, helps reduce gastric secretions, the damage of acid on the upper gut mucosa, and the function of pancreatic exocrine enzymes.

Antidiarrheals reduce intestinal motility but also cause a slight reduction in intestinal secretion. Common agents include loperamide, diphenoxylate with atropine, codeine, and tincture of opium. The review authors say loperamide should get preference over opiate drugs because it is not addictive or sedative.

Use of antidiarrheals should be guided by their effect on stool output.

“Loperamide and codeine may have a synergistic effect when used together,” the authors wrote.

Clonidine, which can be given transdermally, has also shown some benefit in treating high-output stool losses, presumably because of its effects on intestinal motility and secretion.

Weighing risks and benefits of teduglutide

The glucagonlike peptide–2 teduglutide is of particular interest for its ability to help improve intestinal absorption and hopefully wean patients off parenteral nutrition and some will achieve enteral autonomy, the authors wrote. “The very short half-life of native GLP-2 has been extended to allow daily subcutaneous injection in the recombinant molecule, teduglutide.”

However, because teduglutide is a growth factor and can boost the growth of polyps and cancer, it is contraindicated in patients with active gastrointestinal malignancies. Patients should undergo colonoscopy before treatment and periodically thereafter, the authors advised. The benefits of its use in patients with nongastrointestinal malignancy should be weighed carefully with these risks.

“The significant side effects of teduglutide and the cost mandate that teduglutide is employed only after optimizing diet and the more conventional SBS treatments described previously in carefully selected patients with [short bowel syndrome–intestinal failure],” the authors wrote.
 

Dosing drugs effectively

Medications in tablet form need to dissolve before being absorbed. Most oral medications are absorbed within the proximal jejunum, so they can be used in patients with SBS.

“However,” the authors noted, “sustained- and delayed-release medications should be avoided.”

They suggested that, when applicable, alternatives such as liquids and topical medications should be considered, as should the monitoring of medication levels in the blood.

If a patient does not respond, approaches to consider may include increasing a dose, changing dose frequency, or changing drug formulation or route of administration, such as intravenous, subcutaneous, or transdermal.
 

Including parenteral nutrition and oral rehydration

Almost all patients with SBS will need parenteral nutrition (PN) support following resection, and few will be able to stop it before discharge from the hospital.

“Although more than 50% of adults with SBS are able to be weaned completely from PN within 5 years of diagnosis, the probability of eliminating PN use is less than 6% if not successfully accomplished in the first 2 years following the individual’s last bowel resection,” the authors wrote.

For long-term PN, tunneled central venous catheters are preferred over peripherally inserted central venous catheters because of the higher risk of thrombosis and issues related to self-administration of PN with the central catheters. Also, tunneled catheters are preferred over totally implanted devices, or ports, for long-term patients because the main benefit of the port is not realized given that the device needs to be continually accessed and exchanged weekly.

“When calculating PN volume and content, changes in the patient’s weight, laboratory results, stool or ostomy output, urine output, and complaints of thirst should be monitored,” the authors noted.

The authors also discussed oral rehydration solution because patients lose more water and sodium from their stoma than they take in by mouth. Careful consideration of the glucose and sodium levels in oral fluids is important because inappropriate fluids will exacerbate fluid losses in SBS. For example, hypotonic (including water, tea, coffee, alcohol) and hypertonic (including fruit juices and sodas) solutions should be limited.

“A major misconception on the part of patients is that they should drink large quantities of water; however, this generally leads to an increase in ostomy output and creates a vicious cycle further exacerbating fluid and electrolyte disturbances,” they wrote, instead advising glucose–electrolyte rehydration solution to enhance absorption and reduce secretion.
 

Preventing complications

“A knowledge of these complications is critical for those caring for these patients to be able to not only identify and treat them when they occur but also to prevent their occurrence whenever possible,” the authors wrote. Although they considered it beyond the scope of the review to outline every complication, they indicated some complications and management strategies via an included table. These complications can include cirrhosis, osteoporosis, acute kidney disease, and central venous catheter–related infection or occlusion.

Considering further surgery or intestinal transplantation

The authors noted that any further surgery should be carefully considered, with the following three contexts having possible value: “(1) to recruit unused distal bowel, (2) to augment the function of residual bowel through specific lengthening and tapering operations, or (3) to slow intestinal transit.”

Surgeons involved in managing SBS may need to confront complex intra-abdominal problems such as massive desmoid tumors, mesenteric ischemia, or complex enterocutaneous fistulae; a multidisciplinary intestinal rehabilitation team may be better able to help these patients. The authors noted that care for patients starts even before the first operation, by taking every measure to avoid massive bowel resection and the resulting SBS.

The authors noted the importance of early referral for intestinal transplantation consideration for patients with refractory dependency on parenteral nutrition or even onset of parenteral nutrition failure, which refers to complications such as intestinal failure–associated liver disease.

“At present, nearly 50% of patients being considered for ITX are also requiring simultaneous liver replacement, indicating late referral for ITX,” they wrote, citing a data from a report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

They also noted that data have shown short- and medium-term outcomes are steadily improving; however, long-term outcomes have been challenged by opportunistic infections, long-term graft attrition, and other impediments that may be preventing early referral for intestinal transplantation.
 

Educating patients, caregivers

Long-term PN may restrict activity for patients, but patients and caregivers should know about some modifications.

One is to cycle the PN over 10-14 hours overnight to allow freedom from the infusion pump during the day. Infusion pumps can be programmable, and some can be carried in a backpack for infusing during the day.

Authors recommend patient support groups, such as the Oley Foundation, which can help with issues surrounding body image and travel.

Because of the relative rarity of SBS, nonspecialist physicians may care for patients without a dedicated multidisciplinary team and may need education support in managing patients with complex care needs. One source the authors recommend is the Learn Intestinal Failure Tele-ECHO (Expanding Community Healthcare Outcomes) (LIFT-ECHO) project. The LIFT-ECHO project has become an online educational community with case-based learning in SBS, intestinal failure, and PN.

The authors disclose relationships with Takeda, Zealand, VectivBio, Napo, and Hanmi.

The first major revision in the systematic description of ovulatory disorders in nearly 50 years has been proposed by a consensus of experts organized by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

“The FIGO HyPO-P system for the classification of ovulatory disorders is submitted for consideration as a worldwide standard,” according to the writing committee, who published their methodology and their proposed applications in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

The classification system was created to replace the much-modified World Health Organization system first described in 1973. Since that time, many modifications have been proposed to accommodate advances in imaging and new information about underlying pathologies, but there has been no subsequent authoritative reference with these modifications or any other newer organizing system.

The new system “provides a different structure for determining the diagnosis. Blood tests are not a necessary first step,” explained Malcolm G. Munro, MD, clinical professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Munro was the first author of the publication.

The classification system “is not as focused on the specific steps for investigation of ovulatory dysfunction as much as it explains how to structure an investigation of the girl or woman with an ovulatory disorder and then how to characterize the underlying cause,” Dr. Munro said in an interview. “It is designed to allow everyone, whether clinicians, researchers, or patients, to speak the same language.”
 

New system employs four categories

The four primary categories provide just the first level of classification. The next step is encapsulated in the GAIN-FIT-PIE acronym, which frames the presumed or documented categories of etiologies for the primary categories. GAIN stands for genetic, autoimmune, iatrogenic, or neoplasm etiologies. FIT stands for functional, infectious/inflammatory, or trauma and vascular etiologies. PIE stands for physiological, idiopathic, and endocrine etiologies.

By this methodology, a patient with irregular menses, galactorrhea, and elevated prolactin and an MRI showing a pituitary tumor would be identified a type 2-N, signifying pituitary (type 2) involvement with a neoplasm (N).

A third level of classification permits specific diagnostic entities to be named, allowing the patient in the example above to receive a diagnosis of a prolactin-secreting adenoma.

Not all etiologies can be identified with current diagnostic studies, even assuming clinicians have access to the resources, such as advanced imaging, that will increase diagnostic yield. As a result, the authors acknowledged that the classification system will be “aspirational” in at least some patients, but the structure of this system is expected to lead to greater precision in understanding the causes and defining features of ovulatory disorders, which, in turn, might facilitate new research initiatives.

In the published report, diagnostic protocols based on symptoms were described as being “beyond the spectrum” of this initial description. Rather, Dr. Munro explained that the most important contribution of this new classification system are standardization and communication. The system will be amenable for educating trainees and patients, for communicating between clinicians, and as a framework for research where investigators focus on more homogeneous populations of patients.

“There are many causes of ovulatory disorders that are not related to ovarian function. This is one message. Another is that ovulatory disorders are not binary. They occur on a spectrum. These range from transient instances of delayed or failed ovulation to chronic anovulation,” he said.

The new system is “ a welcome update,” according to Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, both in Orlando.

Dr. Trolice pointed to the clinical value of placing PCOS in a separate category. He noted that it affects 8%-13% of women, making it the most common single cause of ovulatory dysfunction.

“Another area that required clarification from prior WHO classifications was hyperprolactinemia, which is now placed in the type II category,” Dr. Trolice said in an interview.

Better terminology can help address a complex set of disorders with multiple causes and variable manifestations.

“In the evaluation of ovulation dysfunction, it is important to remember that regular menstrual intervals do not ensure ovulation,” Dr. Trolice pointed out. Even though a serum progesterone level of higher than 3 ng/mL is one of the simplest laboratory markers for ovulation, this level, he noted, “can vary through the luteal phase and even throughout the day.”

The proposed classification system, while providing a framework for describing ovulatory disorders, is designed to be adaptable, permitting advances in the understanding of the causes of ovulatory dysfunction, in the diagnosis of the causes, and in the treatments to be incorporated.

“No system should be considered permanent,” according to Dr. Munro and his coauthors. “Review and careful modification and revision should be carried out regularly.”

Dr. Munro reports financial relationships with AbbVie, American Regent, Daiichi Sankyo, Hologic, Myovant, and Pharmacosmos. Dr. Trolice reports no potential conflicts of interest.
 

The first major revision in the systematic description of ovulatory disorders in nearly 50 years has been proposed by a consensus of experts organized by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

“The FIGO HyPO-P system for the classification of ovulatory disorders is submitted for consideration as a worldwide standard,” according to the writing committee, who published their methodology and their proposed applications in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

The classification system was created to replace the much-modified World Health Organization system first described in 1973. Since that time, many modifications have been proposed to accommodate advances in imaging and new information about underlying pathologies, but there has been no subsequent authoritative reference with these modifications or any other newer organizing system.

The new system “provides a different structure for determining the diagnosis. Blood tests are not a necessary first step,” explained Malcolm G. Munro, MD, clinical professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Munro was the first author of the publication.

The classification system “is not as focused on the specific steps for investigation of ovulatory dysfunction as much as it explains how to structure an investigation of the girl or woman with an ovulatory disorder and then how to characterize the underlying cause,” Dr. Munro said in an interview. “It is designed to allow everyone, whether clinicians, researchers, or patients, to speak the same language.”
 

New system employs four categories

The four primary categories provide just the first level of classification. The next step is encapsulated in the GAIN-FIT-PIE acronym, which frames the presumed or documented categories of etiologies for the primary categories. GAIN stands for genetic, autoimmune, iatrogenic, or neoplasm etiologies. FIT stands for functional, infectious/inflammatory, or trauma and vascular etiologies. PIE stands for physiological, idiopathic, and endocrine etiologies.

By this methodology, a patient with irregular menses, galactorrhea, and elevated prolactin and an MRI showing a pituitary tumor would be identified a type 2-N, signifying pituitary (type 2) involvement with a neoplasm (N).

A third level of classification permits specific diagnostic entities to be named, allowing the patient in the example above to receive a diagnosis of a prolactin-secreting adenoma.

Not all etiologies can be identified with current diagnostic studies, even assuming clinicians have access to the resources, such as advanced imaging, that will increase diagnostic yield. As a result, the authors acknowledged that the classification system will be “aspirational” in at least some patients, but the structure of this system is expected to lead to greater precision in understanding the causes and defining features of ovulatory disorders, which, in turn, might facilitate new research initiatives.

In the published report, diagnostic protocols based on symptoms were described as being “beyond the spectrum” of this initial description. Rather, Dr. Munro explained that the most important contribution of this new classification system are standardization and communication. The system will be amenable for educating trainees and patients, for communicating between clinicians, and as a framework for research where investigators focus on more homogeneous populations of patients.

“There are many causes of ovulatory disorders that are not related to ovarian function. This is one message. Another is that ovulatory disorders are not binary. They occur on a spectrum. These range from transient instances of delayed or failed ovulation to chronic anovulation,” he said.

The new system is “ a welcome update,” according to Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, both in Orlando.

Dr. Trolice pointed to the clinical value of placing PCOS in a separate category. He noted that it affects 8%-13% of women, making it the most common single cause of ovulatory dysfunction.

“Another area that required clarification from prior WHO classifications was hyperprolactinemia, which is now placed in the type II category,” Dr. Trolice said in an interview.

Better terminology can help address a complex set of disorders with multiple causes and variable manifestations.

“In the evaluation of ovulation dysfunction, it is important to remember that regular menstrual intervals do not ensure ovulation,” Dr. Trolice pointed out. Even though a serum progesterone level of higher than 3 ng/mL is one of the simplest laboratory markers for ovulation, this level, he noted, “can vary through the luteal phase and even throughout the day.”

The proposed classification system, while providing a framework for describing ovulatory disorders, is designed to be adaptable, permitting advances in the understanding of the causes of ovulatory dysfunction, in the diagnosis of the causes, and in the treatments to be incorporated.

“No system should be considered permanent,” according to Dr. Munro and his coauthors. “Review and careful modification and revision should be carried out regularly.”

Dr. Munro reports financial relationships with AbbVie, American Regent, Daiichi Sankyo, Hologic, Myovant, and Pharmacosmos. Dr. Trolice reports no potential conflicts of interest.
 

The first major revision in the systematic description of ovulatory disorders in nearly 50 years has been proposed by a consensus of experts organized by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

“The FIGO HyPO-P system for the classification of ovulatory disorders is submitted for consideration as a worldwide standard,” according to the writing committee, who published their methodology and their proposed applications in the International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

The classification system was created to replace the much-modified World Health Organization system first described in 1973. Since that time, many modifications have been proposed to accommodate advances in imaging and new information about underlying pathologies, but there has been no subsequent authoritative reference with these modifications or any other newer organizing system.

The new system “provides a different structure for determining the diagnosis. Blood tests are not a necessary first step,” explained Malcolm G. Munro, MD, clinical professor, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Munro was the first author of the publication.

The classification system “is not as focused on the specific steps for investigation of ovulatory dysfunction as much as it explains how to structure an investigation of the girl or woman with an ovulatory disorder and then how to characterize the underlying cause,” Dr. Munro said in an interview. “It is designed to allow everyone, whether clinicians, researchers, or patients, to speak the same language.”
 

New system employs four categories

The four primary categories provide just the first level of classification. The next step is encapsulated in the GAIN-FIT-PIE acronym, which frames the presumed or documented categories of etiologies for the primary categories. GAIN stands for genetic, autoimmune, iatrogenic, or neoplasm etiologies. FIT stands for functional, infectious/inflammatory, or trauma and vascular etiologies. PIE stands for physiological, idiopathic, and endocrine etiologies.

By this methodology, a patient with irregular menses, galactorrhea, and elevated prolactin and an MRI showing a pituitary tumor would be identified a type 2-N, signifying pituitary (type 2) involvement with a neoplasm (N).

A third level of classification permits specific diagnostic entities to be named, allowing the patient in the example above to receive a diagnosis of a prolactin-secreting adenoma.

Not all etiologies can be identified with current diagnostic studies, even assuming clinicians have access to the resources, such as advanced imaging, that will increase diagnostic yield. As a result, the authors acknowledged that the classification system will be “aspirational” in at least some patients, but the structure of this system is expected to lead to greater precision in understanding the causes and defining features of ovulatory disorders, which, in turn, might facilitate new research initiatives.

In the published report, diagnostic protocols based on symptoms were described as being “beyond the spectrum” of this initial description. Rather, Dr. Munro explained that the most important contribution of this new classification system are standardization and communication. The system will be amenable for educating trainees and patients, for communicating between clinicians, and as a framework for research where investigators focus on more homogeneous populations of patients.

“There are many causes of ovulatory disorders that are not related to ovarian function. This is one message. Another is that ovulatory disorders are not binary. They occur on a spectrum. These range from transient instances of delayed or failed ovulation to chronic anovulation,” he said.

The new system is “ a welcome update,” according to Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of the IVF Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, both in Orlando.

Dr. Trolice pointed to the clinical value of placing PCOS in a separate category. He noted that it affects 8%-13% of women, making it the most common single cause of ovulatory dysfunction.

“Another area that required clarification from prior WHO classifications was hyperprolactinemia, which is now placed in the type II category,” Dr. Trolice said in an interview.

Better terminology can help address a complex set of disorders with multiple causes and variable manifestations.

“In the evaluation of ovulation dysfunction, it is important to remember that regular menstrual intervals do not ensure ovulation,” Dr. Trolice pointed out. Even though a serum progesterone level of higher than 3 ng/mL is one of the simplest laboratory markers for ovulation, this level, he noted, “can vary through the luteal phase and even throughout the day.”

The proposed classification system, while providing a framework for describing ovulatory disorders, is designed to be adaptable, permitting advances in the understanding of the causes of ovulatory dysfunction, in the diagnosis of the causes, and in the treatments to be incorporated.

“No system should be considered permanent,” according to Dr. Munro and his coauthors. “Review and careful modification and revision should be carried out regularly.”

Dr. Munro reports financial relationships with AbbVie, American Regent, Daiichi Sankyo, Hologic, Myovant, and Pharmacosmos. Dr. Trolice reports no potential conflicts of interest.
 

To address current gaps in expert guidance on newer nonstatin agents, the American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies in LDL cholesterol lowering for risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Since the publication of the most recent AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines in 2018, a number of newer nonstatin medications have become available for management of lipid-associated risk, including bempedoic acid, inclisiran, evinacumab, and icosapent ethyl.

These medications were not addressed in the 2018 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol.

The 53-page document – 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Nonstatin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk – was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The new expert consensus document provides guidance for clinicians until the next formal guidelines are produced, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the writing committee, told this news organization.

• In what patient populations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
• In what situations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
• If newer nonstatin therapies are to be added, which therapies should be considered and in what order to maximize patient benefit and preference?

The document provides algorithms that endorse the four evidence-based patient groups identified in the 2018 guidelines and assumes that the patient is currently taking or has attempted to take a statin, given that that is the most effective initial therapy, the writing group says.

“The algorithms have been streamlined for ease of use by clinicians to help them identify who may need adjunctive nonstatin medications, to provide thresholds for consideration of those medications, and to provide a prioritization of those medications based on the strength of available evidence of efficacy,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

“We hope that these pathways will assist the decision-making process for clinicians and patients,” he added.

He also noted that statins remain the “most important first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk, because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. However, for some patients, there are now options if statins do not fully achieve the goals for reducing ASCVD risk or if statins are not tolerated at effective doses.”

“The new expert consensus document highlights that higher-risk patients should be considered more often for adjunctive therapy and provides user-friendly decision pathways to assist in considering the reasonable choices available under different clinical scenarios,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

The document has been endorsed by the National Lipid Association.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

To address current gaps in expert guidance on newer nonstatin agents, the American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies in LDL cholesterol lowering for risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Since the publication of the most recent AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines in 2018, a number of newer nonstatin medications have become available for management of lipid-associated risk, including bempedoic acid, inclisiran, evinacumab, and icosapent ethyl.

These medications were not addressed in the 2018 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol.

The 53-page document – 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Nonstatin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk – was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The new expert consensus document provides guidance for clinicians until the next formal guidelines are produced, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the writing committee, told this news organization.

• In what patient populations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
• In what situations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
• If newer nonstatin therapies are to be added, which therapies should be considered and in what order to maximize patient benefit and preference?

The document provides algorithms that endorse the four evidence-based patient groups identified in the 2018 guidelines and assumes that the patient is currently taking or has attempted to take a statin, given that that is the most effective initial therapy, the writing group says.

“The algorithms have been streamlined for ease of use by clinicians to help them identify who may need adjunctive nonstatin medications, to provide thresholds for consideration of those medications, and to provide a prioritization of those medications based on the strength of available evidence of efficacy,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

“We hope that these pathways will assist the decision-making process for clinicians and patients,” he added.

He also noted that statins remain the “most important first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk, because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. However, for some patients, there are now options if statins do not fully achieve the goals for reducing ASCVD risk or if statins are not tolerated at effective doses.”

“The new expert consensus document highlights that higher-risk patients should be considered more often for adjunctive therapy and provides user-friendly decision pathways to assist in considering the reasonable choices available under different clinical scenarios,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

The document has been endorsed by the National Lipid Association.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

To address current gaps in expert guidance on newer nonstatin agents, the American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus decision pathway on the role of nonstatin therapies in LDL cholesterol lowering for risk reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Since the publication of the most recent AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines in 2018, a number of newer nonstatin medications have become available for management of lipid-associated risk, including bempedoic acid, inclisiran, evinacumab, and icosapent ethyl.

These medications were not addressed in the 2018 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol.

The 53-page document – 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Nonstatin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk – was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The new expert consensus document provides guidance for clinicians until the next formal guidelines are produced, Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, chair of the writing committee, told this news organization.

• In what patient populations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
• In what situations should newer nonstatin therapies be considered?
• If newer nonstatin therapies are to be added, which therapies should be considered and in what order to maximize patient benefit and preference?

The document provides algorithms that endorse the four evidence-based patient groups identified in the 2018 guidelines and assumes that the patient is currently taking or has attempted to take a statin, given that that is the most effective initial therapy, the writing group says.

“The algorithms have been streamlined for ease of use by clinicians to help them identify who may need adjunctive nonstatin medications, to provide thresholds for consideration of those medications, and to provide a prioritization of those medications based on the strength of available evidence of efficacy,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

“We hope that these pathways will assist the decision-making process for clinicians and patients,” he added.

He also noted that statins remain the “most important first-line therapy for reducing ASCVD risk, because of their efficacy, safety, and low cost. However, for some patients, there are now options if statins do not fully achieve the goals for reducing ASCVD risk or if statins are not tolerated at effective doses.”

“The new expert consensus document highlights that higher-risk patients should be considered more often for adjunctive therapy and provides user-friendly decision pathways to assist in considering the reasonable choices available under different clinical scenarios,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

The document has been endorsed by the National Lipid Association.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Lloyd-Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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