Guidelines

Hormone therapy remains a topic for debate, but a constant in the 2 decades since the Women’s Health Initiative has been the demonstrated effectiveness for relief of vasomotor symptoms and reduction of fracture risk in menopausal women, according to the latest hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society.

“Healthcare professionals caring for menopausal women should understand the basic concepts of relative risk and absolute risk,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health and medical director of NAMS, and members of the NAMS 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel in Menopause.

The authors noted that the risks of hormone therapy vary considerably based on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of the start of therapy, and whether or not a progestogen is included.

The 2022 statement was commissioned to review new literature and identify the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence since the previous statement in 2017.

The current statement represents not so much a practice-changing update, “but rather that the literature has filled out in some areas,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “The recommendations overall haven’t changed,” she said. “The position statement reiterates that hormone therapy, which is significantly underutilized, remains a safe and effective treatment for menopause symptoms, which remain undertreated, with the benefits outweighing the risks for most healthy women who are within 10 years of menopause onset and under the age of 60 years,” she emphasized. “Individualizing therapy is key to maximizing benefits and minimizing risks,” she added.

Overall, the authors confirmed that hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. The risks of hormone therapy differ depending on type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used.

Risks and benefits should be stratified by age and time since the start of menopause, according to the statement.

For women younger than 60 years or within 10 years of the onset of menopause who have no contraindications, the potential benefits outweigh the risks in most cases for use of hormone therapy to manage vasomotor symptoms and to help prevent bone loss and reduce fracture risk.

For women who begin hormone therapy more than 10 or 20 years from the start of menopause, or who are aged 60 years and older, the risk-benefit ratio may be less favorable because of the increased absolute risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. However, strategies such as lower doses and transdermal administration may reduce this risk, according to the statement.

The authors continue to recommend that longer durations of hormone therapy be for documented indications, such as VMS relief, and that patients on longer duration of therapy be reassessed periodically as part of a shared decision-making process. Women with persistent VMS or quality of life issues, or those at risk for osteoporosis, may continue hormone therapy beyond age 60 or 65 years after appropriate evaluation and risk-benefit counseling.

Women with ongoing GSM without indications for systemic therapy whose GSM persists after over-the-counter therapies may try low-dose vaginal estrogen or other nonestrogen therapies regardless of age and for an extended duration if needed, according to the statement.
 

Challenges, research gaps, and goals

“Barriers to the use of hormone therapy include lack of access to high quality care,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. The NAMS website, menopause.org, features an option to search for a NAMS-certified provider by ZIP code, she noted.

“Coverage of hormone therapy is highly variable and depends on the insurance company, but most women have access to one form or another with insurance coverage,” she said. “We need to continue to advocate for adequate coverage of menopause symptom treatments, including hormone therapy, so that women’s symptoms – which can significantly affect quality of life – are adequately managed.

“Additional research is needed on the thrombotic risk (venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, and stroke) of oral versus transdermal therapies (including different formulations, doses, and durations of therapy),” Dr. Faubion told this news organization. “More clinical trial data are needed to confirm or refute the potential beneficial effects of hormone therapy on coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality when initiated in perimenopause or early postmenopause,” she said.

Other areas for research include “the breast effects of different estrogen preparations, including the role for selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) and tissue selective estrogen complex therapies, optimal progestogen or SERM regimens to prevent endometrial hyperplasia, the relationship between vasomotor symptoms and the risk for heart disease and cognitive changes, and the risks of premature ovarian insufficiency,” Dr. Faubion emphasized.

Looking ahead, “Studies are needed on the effects of longer use of low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy after breast or endometrial cancer, extended use of hormone therapy in women who are early initiators, improved tools to personalize or individualize benefits and risks of hormone therapy, and the role of aging and genetics,” said Dr. Faubion. Other areas for further research include “the long-term benefits and risks on women’s health of lifestyle modification or complementary or nonhormone therapies, if chosen in addition to or over hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, bone health, and cardiovascular disease risk reduction,” she added.

The complete statement was published in Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society.

The position statement received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Hormone therapy remains a topic for debate, but a constant in the 2 decades since the Women’s Health Initiative has been the demonstrated effectiveness for relief of vasomotor symptoms and reduction of fracture risk in menopausal women, according to the latest hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society.

“Healthcare professionals caring for menopausal women should understand the basic concepts of relative risk and absolute risk,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health and medical director of NAMS, and members of the NAMS 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel in Menopause.

The authors noted that the risks of hormone therapy vary considerably based on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of the start of therapy, and whether or not a progestogen is included.

The 2022 statement was commissioned to review new literature and identify the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence since the previous statement in 2017.

The current statement represents not so much a practice-changing update, “but rather that the literature has filled out in some areas,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “The recommendations overall haven’t changed,” she said. “The position statement reiterates that hormone therapy, which is significantly underutilized, remains a safe and effective treatment for menopause symptoms, which remain undertreated, with the benefits outweighing the risks for most healthy women who are within 10 years of menopause onset and under the age of 60 years,” she emphasized. “Individualizing therapy is key to maximizing benefits and minimizing risks,” she added.

Overall, the authors confirmed that hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. The risks of hormone therapy differ depending on type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used.

Risks and benefits should be stratified by age and time since the start of menopause, according to the statement.

For women younger than 60 years or within 10 years of the onset of menopause who have no contraindications, the potential benefits outweigh the risks in most cases for use of hormone therapy to manage vasomotor symptoms and to help prevent bone loss and reduce fracture risk.

For women who begin hormone therapy more than 10 or 20 years from the start of menopause, or who are aged 60 years and older, the risk-benefit ratio may be less favorable because of the increased absolute risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. However, strategies such as lower doses and transdermal administration may reduce this risk, according to the statement.

The authors continue to recommend that longer durations of hormone therapy be for documented indications, such as VMS relief, and that patients on longer duration of therapy be reassessed periodically as part of a shared decision-making process. Women with persistent VMS or quality of life issues, or those at risk for osteoporosis, may continue hormone therapy beyond age 60 or 65 years after appropriate evaluation and risk-benefit counseling.

Women with ongoing GSM without indications for systemic therapy whose GSM persists after over-the-counter therapies may try low-dose vaginal estrogen or other nonestrogen therapies regardless of age and for an extended duration if needed, according to the statement.
 

Challenges, research gaps, and goals

“Barriers to the use of hormone therapy include lack of access to high quality care,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. The NAMS website, menopause.org, features an option to search for a NAMS-certified provider by ZIP code, she noted.

“Coverage of hormone therapy is highly variable and depends on the insurance company, but most women have access to one form or another with insurance coverage,” she said. “We need to continue to advocate for adequate coverage of menopause symptom treatments, including hormone therapy, so that women’s symptoms – which can significantly affect quality of life – are adequately managed.

“Additional research is needed on the thrombotic risk (venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, and stroke) of oral versus transdermal therapies (including different formulations, doses, and durations of therapy),” Dr. Faubion told this news organization. “More clinical trial data are needed to confirm or refute the potential beneficial effects of hormone therapy on coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality when initiated in perimenopause or early postmenopause,” she said.

Other areas for research include “the breast effects of different estrogen preparations, including the role for selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) and tissue selective estrogen complex therapies, optimal progestogen or SERM regimens to prevent endometrial hyperplasia, the relationship between vasomotor symptoms and the risk for heart disease and cognitive changes, and the risks of premature ovarian insufficiency,” Dr. Faubion emphasized.

Looking ahead, “Studies are needed on the effects of longer use of low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy after breast or endometrial cancer, extended use of hormone therapy in women who are early initiators, improved tools to personalize or individualize benefits and risks of hormone therapy, and the role of aging and genetics,” said Dr. Faubion. Other areas for further research include “the long-term benefits and risks on women’s health of lifestyle modification or complementary or nonhormone therapies, if chosen in addition to or over hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, bone health, and cardiovascular disease risk reduction,” she added.

The complete statement was published in Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society.

The position statement received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Hormone therapy remains a topic for debate, but a constant in the 2 decades since the Women’s Health Initiative has been the demonstrated effectiveness for relief of vasomotor symptoms and reduction of fracture risk in menopausal women, according to the latest hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society.

“Healthcare professionals caring for menopausal women should understand the basic concepts of relative risk and absolute risk,” wrote Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, director of the Mayo Clinic Center for Women’s Health and medical director of NAMS, and members of the NAMS 2022 Hormone Therapy Position Statement Advisory Panel in Menopause.

The authors noted that the risks of hormone therapy vary considerably based on type, dose, duration, route of administration, timing of the start of therapy, and whether or not a progestogen is included.

The 2022 statement was commissioned to review new literature and identify the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence since the previous statement in 2017.

The current statement represents not so much a practice-changing update, “but rather that the literature has filled out in some areas,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. “The recommendations overall haven’t changed,” she said. “The position statement reiterates that hormone therapy, which is significantly underutilized, remains a safe and effective treatment for menopause symptoms, which remain undertreated, with the benefits outweighing the risks for most healthy women who are within 10 years of menopause onset and under the age of 60 years,” she emphasized. “Individualizing therapy is key to maximizing benefits and minimizing risks,” she added.

Overall, the authors confirmed that hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and the genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. The risks of hormone therapy differ depending on type, dose, duration of use, route of administration, timing of initiation, and whether a progestogen is used.

Risks and benefits should be stratified by age and time since the start of menopause, according to the statement.

For women younger than 60 years or within 10 years of the onset of menopause who have no contraindications, the potential benefits outweigh the risks in most cases for use of hormone therapy to manage vasomotor symptoms and to help prevent bone loss and reduce fracture risk.

For women who begin hormone therapy more than 10 or 20 years from the start of menopause, or who are aged 60 years and older, the risk-benefit ratio may be less favorable because of the increased absolute risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. However, strategies such as lower doses and transdermal administration may reduce this risk, according to the statement.

The authors continue to recommend that longer durations of hormone therapy be for documented indications, such as VMS relief, and that patients on longer duration of therapy be reassessed periodically as part of a shared decision-making process. Women with persistent VMS or quality of life issues, or those at risk for osteoporosis, may continue hormone therapy beyond age 60 or 65 years after appropriate evaluation and risk-benefit counseling.

Women with ongoing GSM without indications for systemic therapy whose GSM persists after over-the-counter therapies may try low-dose vaginal estrogen or other nonestrogen therapies regardless of age and for an extended duration if needed, according to the statement.
 

Challenges, research gaps, and goals

“Barriers to the use of hormone therapy include lack of access to high quality care,” Dr. Faubion said in an interview. The NAMS website, menopause.org, features an option to search for a NAMS-certified provider by ZIP code, she noted.

“Coverage of hormone therapy is highly variable and depends on the insurance company, but most women have access to one form or another with insurance coverage,” she said. “We need to continue to advocate for adequate coverage of menopause symptom treatments, including hormone therapy, so that women’s symptoms – which can significantly affect quality of life – are adequately managed.

“Additional research is needed on the thrombotic risk (venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, and stroke) of oral versus transdermal therapies (including different formulations, doses, and durations of therapy),” Dr. Faubion told this news organization. “More clinical trial data are needed to confirm or refute the potential beneficial effects of hormone therapy on coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality when initiated in perimenopause or early postmenopause,” she said.

Other areas for research include “the breast effects of different estrogen preparations, including the role for selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) and tissue selective estrogen complex therapies, optimal progestogen or SERM regimens to prevent endometrial hyperplasia, the relationship between vasomotor symptoms and the risk for heart disease and cognitive changes, and the risks of premature ovarian insufficiency,” Dr. Faubion emphasized.

Looking ahead, “Studies are needed on the effects of longer use of low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy after breast or endometrial cancer, extended use of hormone therapy in women who are early initiators, improved tools to personalize or individualize benefits and risks of hormone therapy, and the role of aging and genetics,” said Dr. Faubion. Other areas for further research include “the long-term benefits and risks on women’s health of lifestyle modification or complementary or nonhormone therapies, if chosen in addition to or over hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms, bone health, and cardiovascular disease risk reduction,” she added.

The complete statement was published in Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society.

The position statement received no outside funding. The authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Raising phototherapy thresholds and revising risk assessment are among the key changes in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated guidelines for managing hyperbilirubinemia in infants 35 weeks’ gestation and older.

“More than 80% of newborn infants will have some degree of jaundice,” Alex R. Kemper, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors wrote. Careful monitoring is needed manage high bilirubin concentrations and avoid acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and kernicterus, a disabling neurologic condition.

The current revision, published in Pediatrics, updates and replaces the 2004 AAP clinical practice guidelines for the management and prevention of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns of at least 35 weeks’ gestation.

The guideline committee reviewed evidence published since the previous guidelines were issued in 2004, and addressed similar issues of prevention, risk assessment, monitoring, and treatment.

A notable change from 2004 was the inclusion of a 2009 recommendation update for “universal predischarge bilirubin screening with measures of total serum bilirubin (TSB) or transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) linked to specific recommendations for follow-up,” the authors wrote.

In terms of prevention, recommendations include a direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for infants whose mother’s antibody screen was positive or unknown. In addition, exclusive breastfeeding is known to be associated with hyperbilirubinemia, but clinicians should support breastfeeding while monitoring for signs of hyperbilirubinemia because of suboptimal feeding, the authors noted. However, the guidelines recommend against oral supplementation with water or dextrose water to prevent hyperbilirubinemia.

For assessment and monitoring, the guidelines advise the use of total serum bilirubin (TSB) as the definitive test for hyperbilirubinemia to guide phototherapy and escalation of care, including exchange transfusion. “The presence of hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors lowers the threshold for treatment with phototherapy and the level at which care should be escalated,” the authors wrote. They also emphasized the need to consider glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, a genetic condition that decreases protection against oxidative stress and has been identified as a leading cause of hazardous hyperbilirubinemia worldwide.

The guidelines recommend assessing all infants for jaundice at least every 12 hours after delivery until discharge, with TSB or TcB measured as soon as possible for those with suspected jaundice. The complete guidelines include charts for TSB levels to guide escalation of care. “Blood for TSB can be obtained at the time it is collected for newborn screening tests to avoid an additional heel stick,” the authors noted.

The rate of increase in TSB or TcB, if more than one measure is available, may identify infants at higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines, and a possible delay of hospital discharge may be needed for infants if appropriate follow-up is not feasible.

In terms of treatment, new evidence that bilirubin neurotoxicity does not occur until concentrations well above those given in the 2004 guidelines justified raising the treatment thresholds, although by a narrow range. “With the increased phototherapy thresholds, appropriately following the current guidelines including bilirubin screening during the birth hospitalization and timely postdischarge follow-up is important,” the authors wrote. The new thresholds, outlined in the complete guidelines, are based on gestational age, hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors, and the age of the infant in hours. However, infants may be treated at lower levels, based on individual circumstances, family preferences, and shared decision-making with clinicians. Home-based phototherapy may be used in some infants, but should not be used if there is a question about the device quality, delivery time, and ability of caregivers to use the device correctly.

“Discontinuing phototherapy is an option when the TSB has decreased by at least 2 mg/dL below the hour-specific threshold at the initiation of phototherapy,” and follow-up should be based on risk of rebound hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines.

“This clinical practice guideline provides indications and approaches for phototherapy and escalation of care and when treatment and monitoring can be safely discontinued,” However, clinicians should understand the rationale for the recommendations and combine them with their clinical judgment, including shared decision-making when appropriate, the authors concluded.
 

Updated evidence supports escalating care

The take-home message for pediatricians is that neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a very common finding, and complications are rare, but the condition can result in devastating life-long results, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Previous guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2009 included evidence-based recommendations, but additional research was still needed to provide guidance for providers to prevent complications of hyperbilirubinemia,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in producing the guidelines.

“New data documenting additional risk factors, the importance of ongoing breastfeeding support, and addressing hyperbilirubinemia as an urgent problem” are additions to prevention methods in the latest published guidelines, she said.

“Acute encephalopathy and kernicterus can result from hyperbilirubinemia with severe and devastating neurologic effects, but are preventable by early identification and treatment,” said Dr. Haut. Therefore, “it is not surprising that the AAP utilized continuing and more recent evidence to support new recommendations. Both maternal and neonatal risk factors have long been considered in the development of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, but recent recommendations incorporate additional risk factor evaluation and urgency in time to appropriate care. Detailed thresholds for phototherapy and exchange transfusion will benefit the families of full-term infants without other risk factors and escalate care for those neonates with risk factors.”

However, potential barriers to following the guidelines persist, Dr. Haut noted.

“Frequent infant follow-up can be challenging for busy primary care offices with outpatient laboratory results often taking much longer to obtain than in a hospital setting,” she said.

Also, “taking a newborn to the emergency department or an inpatient laboratory can be frightening for families with the risk of illness exposure. Frequent monitoring of serum bilirubin levels is disturbing for parents and inconvenient immediately postpartum,” Dr. Haut explained. “Few practices utilize transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring which may be one method of added screening.”

In addition, “despite the importance of breastfeeding, ongoing support is not readily available for mothers after hospital discharge. A lactation specialist in the office setting can take the burden off providers and add opportunity for family education.”

As for additional research, “continued evaluation of the comparison of transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring and serum levels along with the use of transcutaneous monitoring in facilities outside the hospital setting may be warranted,” Dr. Haut said. “Data collection on incidence and accompanying risk factors of neonates who develop acute hyperbilirubinemia encephalopathy and kernicterus is a long-term study opportunity.”

The guidelines received no external funding. Lead author Dr. Kemper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Raising phototherapy thresholds and revising risk assessment are among the key changes in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated guidelines for managing hyperbilirubinemia in infants 35 weeks’ gestation and older.

“More than 80% of newborn infants will have some degree of jaundice,” Alex R. Kemper, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors wrote. Careful monitoring is needed manage high bilirubin concentrations and avoid acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and kernicterus, a disabling neurologic condition.

The current revision, published in Pediatrics, updates and replaces the 2004 AAP clinical practice guidelines for the management and prevention of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns of at least 35 weeks’ gestation.

The guideline committee reviewed evidence published since the previous guidelines were issued in 2004, and addressed similar issues of prevention, risk assessment, monitoring, and treatment.

A notable change from 2004 was the inclusion of a 2009 recommendation update for “universal predischarge bilirubin screening with measures of total serum bilirubin (TSB) or transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) linked to specific recommendations for follow-up,” the authors wrote.

In terms of prevention, recommendations include a direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for infants whose mother’s antibody screen was positive or unknown. In addition, exclusive breastfeeding is known to be associated with hyperbilirubinemia, but clinicians should support breastfeeding while monitoring for signs of hyperbilirubinemia because of suboptimal feeding, the authors noted. However, the guidelines recommend against oral supplementation with water or dextrose water to prevent hyperbilirubinemia.

For assessment and monitoring, the guidelines advise the use of total serum bilirubin (TSB) as the definitive test for hyperbilirubinemia to guide phototherapy and escalation of care, including exchange transfusion. “The presence of hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors lowers the threshold for treatment with phototherapy and the level at which care should be escalated,” the authors wrote. They also emphasized the need to consider glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, a genetic condition that decreases protection against oxidative stress and has been identified as a leading cause of hazardous hyperbilirubinemia worldwide.

The guidelines recommend assessing all infants for jaundice at least every 12 hours after delivery until discharge, with TSB or TcB measured as soon as possible for those with suspected jaundice. The complete guidelines include charts for TSB levels to guide escalation of care. “Blood for TSB can be obtained at the time it is collected for newborn screening tests to avoid an additional heel stick,” the authors noted.

The rate of increase in TSB or TcB, if more than one measure is available, may identify infants at higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines, and a possible delay of hospital discharge may be needed for infants if appropriate follow-up is not feasible.

In terms of treatment, new evidence that bilirubin neurotoxicity does not occur until concentrations well above those given in the 2004 guidelines justified raising the treatment thresholds, although by a narrow range. “With the increased phototherapy thresholds, appropriately following the current guidelines including bilirubin screening during the birth hospitalization and timely postdischarge follow-up is important,” the authors wrote. The new thresholds, outlined in the complete guidelines, are based on gestational age, hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors, and the age of the infant in hours. However, infants may be treated at lower levels, based on individual circumstances, family preferences, and shared decision-making with clinicians. Home-based phototherapy may be used in some infants, but should not be used if there is a question about the device quality, delivery time, and ability of caregivers to use the device correctly.

“Discontinuing phototherapy is an option when the TSB has decreased by at least 2 mg/dL below the hour-specific threshold at the initiation of phototherapy,” and follow-up should be based on risk of rebound hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines.

“This clinical practice guideline provides indications and approaches for phototherapy and escalation of care and when treatment and monitoring can be safely discontinued,” However, clinicians should understand the rationale for the recommendations and combine them with their clinical judgment, including shared decision-making when appropriate, the authors concluded.
 

Updated evidence supports escalating care

The take-home message for pediatricians is that neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a very common finding, and complications are rare, but the condition can result in devastating life-long results, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Previous guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2009 included evidence-based recommendations, but additional research was still needed to provide guidance for providers to prevent complications of hyperbilirubinemia,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in producing the guidelines.

“New data documenting additional risk factors, the importance of ongoing breastfeeding support, and addressing hyperbilirubinemia as an urgent problem” are additions to prevention methods in the latest published guidelines, she said.

“Acute encephalopathy and kernicterus can result from hyperbilirubinemia with severe and devastating neurologic effects, but are preventable by early identification and treatment,” said Dr. Haut. Therefore, “it is not surprising that the AAP utilized continuing and more recent evidence to support new recommendations. Both maternal and neonatal risk factors have long been considered in the development of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, but recent recommendations incorporate additional risk factor evaluation and urgency in time to appropriate care. Detailed thresholds for phototherapy and exchange transfusion will benefit the families of full-term infants without other risk factors and escalate care for those neonates with risk factors.”

However, potential barriers to following the guidelines persist, Dr. Haut noted.

“Frequent infant follow-up can be challenging for busy primary care offices with outpatient laboratory results often taking much longer to obtain than in a hospital setting,” she said.

Also, “taking a newborn to the emergency department or an inpatient laboratory can be frightening for families with the risk of illness exposure. Frequent monitoring of serum bilirubin levels is disturbing for parents and inconvenient immediately postpartum,” Dr. Haut explained. “Few practices utilize transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring which may be one method of added screening.”

In addition, “despite the importance of breastfeeding, ongoing support is not readily available for mothers after hospital discharge. A lactation specialist in the office setting can take the burden off providers and add opportunity for family education.”

As for additional research, “continued evaluation of the comparison of transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring and serum levels along with the use of transcutaneous monitoring in facilities outside the hospital setting may be warranted,” Dr. Haut said. “Data collection on incidence and accompanying risk factors of neonates who develop acute hyperbilirubinemia encephalopathy and kernicterus is a long-term study opportunity.”

The guidelines received no external funding. Lead author Dr. Kemper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Raising phototherapy thresholds and revising risk assessment are among the key changes in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated guidelines for managing hyperbilirubinemia in infants 35 weeks’ gestation and older.

“More than 80% of newborn infants will have some degree of jaundice,” Alex R. Kemper, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and coauthors wrote. Careful monitoring is needed manage high bilirubin concentrations and avoid acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE) and kernicterus, a disabling neurologic condition.

The current revision, published in Pediatrics, updates and replaces the 2004 AAP clinical practice guidelines for the management and prevention of hyperbilirubinemia in newborns of at least 35 weeks’ gestation.

The guideline committee reviewed evidence published since the previous guidelines were issued in 2004, and addressed similar issues of prevention, risk assessment, monitoring, and treatment.

A notable change from 2004 was the inclusion of a 2009 recommendation update for “universal predischarge bilirubin screening with measures of total serum bilirubin (TSB) or transcutaneous bilirubin (TcB) linked to specific recommendations for follow-up,” the authors wrote.

In terms of prevention, recommendations include a direct antiglobulin test (DAT) for infants whose mother’s antibody screen was positive or unknown. In addition, exclusive breastfeeding is known to be associated with hyperbilirubinemia, but clinicians should support breastfeeding while monitoring for signs of hyperbilirubinemia because of suboptimal feeding, the authors noted. However, the guidelines recommend against oral supplementation with water or dextrose water to prevent hyperbilirubinemia.

For assessment and monitoring, the guidelines advise the use of total serum bilirubin (TSB) as the definitive test for hyperbilirubinemia to guide phototherapy and escalation of care, including exchange transfusion. “The presence of hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors lowers the threshold for treatment with phototherapy and the level at which care should be escalated,” the authors wrote. They also emphasized the need to consider glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, a genetic condition that decreases protection against oxidative stress and has been identified as a leading cause of hazardous hyperbilirubinemia worldwide.

The guidelines recommend assessing all infants for jaundice at least every 12 hours after delivery until discharge, with TSB or TcB measured as soon as possible for those with suspected jaundice. The complete guidelines include charts for TSB levels to guide escalation of care. “Blood for TSB can be obtained at the time it is collected for newborn screening tests to avoid an additional heel stick,” the authors noted.

The rate of increase in TSB or TcB, if more than one measure is available, may identify infants at higher risk of hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines, and a possible delay of hospital discharge may be needed for infants if appropriate follow-up is not feasible.

In terms of treatment, new evidence that bilirubin neurotoxicity does not occur until concentrations well above those given in the 2004 guidelines justified raising the treatment thresholds, although by a narrow range. “With the increased phototherapy thresholds, appropriately following the current guidelines including bilirubin screening during the birth hospitalization and timely postdischarge follow-up is important,” the authors wrote. The new thresholds, outlined in the complete guidelines, are based on gestational age, hyperbilirubinemia neurotoxicity risk factors, and the age of the infant in hours. However, infants may be treated at lower levels, based on individual circumstances, family preferences, and shared decision-making with clinicians. Home-based phototherapy may be used in some infants, but should not be used if there is a question about the device quality, delivery time, and ability of caregivers to use the device correctly.

“Discontinuing phototherapy is an option when the TSB has decreased by at least 2 mg/dL below the hour-specific threshold at the initiation of phototherapy,” and follow-up should be based on risk of rebound hyperbilirubinemia, according to the guidelines.

“This clinical practice guideline provides indications and approaches for phototherapy and escalation of care and when treatment and monitoring can be safely discontinued,” However, clinicians should understand the rationale for the recommendations and combine them with their clinical judgment, including shared decision-making when appropriate, the authors concluded.
 

Updated evidence supports escalating care

The take-home message for pediatricians is that neonatal hyperbilirubinemia is a very common finding, and complications are rare, but the condition can result in devastating life-long results, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“Previous guidelines published in 2004 and updated in 2009 included evidence-based recommendations, but additional research was still needed to provide guidance for providers to prevent complications of hyperbilirubinemia,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in producing the guidelines.

“New data documenting additional risk factors, the importance of ongoing breastfeeding support, and addressing hyperbilirubinemia as an urgent problem” are additions to prevention methods in the latest published guidelines, she said.

“Acute encephalopathy and kernicterus can result from hyperbilirubinemia with severe and devastating neurologic effects, but are preventable by early identification and treatment,” said Dr. Haut. Therefore, “it is not surprising that the AAP utilized continuing and more recent evidence to support new recommendations. Both maternal and neonatal risk factors have long been considered in the development of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, but recent recommendations incorporate additional risk factor evaluation and urgency in time to appropriate care. Detailed thresholds for phototherapy and exchange transfusion will benefit the families of full-term infants without other risk factors and escalate care for those neonates with risk factors.”

However, potential barriers to following the guidelines persist, Dr. Haut noted.

“Frequent infant follow-up can be challenging for busy primary care offices with outpatient laboratory results often taking much longer to obtain than in a hospital setting,” she said.

Also, “taking a newborn to the emergency department or an inpatient laboratory can be frightening for families with the risk of illness exposure. Frequent monitoring of serum bilirubin levels is disturbing for parents and inconvenient immediately postpartum,” Dr. Haut explained. “Few practices utilize transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring which may be one method of added screening.”

In addition, “despite the importance of breastfeeding, ongoing support is not readily available for mothers after hospital discharge. A lactation specialist in the office setting can take the burden off providers and add opportunity for family education.”

As for additional research, “continued evaluation of the comparison of transcutaneous bilirubin monitoring and serum levels along with the use of transcutaneous monitoring in facilities outside the hospital setting may be warranted,” Dr. Haut said. “Data collection on incidence and accompanying risk factors of neonates who develop acute hyperbilirubinemia encephalopathy and kernicterus is a long-term study opportunity.”

The guidelines received no external funding. Lead author Dr. Kemper had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association offers practical advice around surveillance and use of new screening technologies for Barrett’s esophagus.

The AGA clinical practice update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology comes from the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. It offers 15 best practice advice statements based on expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion. The aim is “to provide an update on advances and innovation” but not to replace current guidelines.

“Guidelines operate on rigorous methodology which requires the use of [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation] methodology and a higher level of evidence. In gastroenterology especially, innovation is moving quickly and there’s no way for patients to reap their benefits if clinical practice was dictated by guidelines alone. That said, we do need documents that support and drive innovation in clinical practice,” corresponding author Srinadh Komanduri, MD, professor of medicine and surgery in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news publication.

Asked to comment, Vivek Kaul, MD, the Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said that the document is “an important attempt to not only present the available scientific literature in a very concise and understandable manner, but it goes above and beyond that in terms of diving into some novel paradigms and technologies and procedures that are either emerging or will be emerging in the near future.”
 

Improving detection by dropping GERD requirement

The first of the 15 statements may also be the most paradigm shifting: The panel suggests screening via standard upper endoscopy of people with at least three risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including those who are male, are non-Hispanic White, are aged above 50 years, and have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, or a family history of Barrett’s esophagus or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This represents a departure from all current guidelines, which stipulate GERD as a necessary prerequisite for screening. But the reason is simple, according to the authors: A majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer never experience classic GERD symptoms.

“There is growing evidence in high-level publications over the last couple of years that reflux is not the ideal predictor, based on odds, for development of Barrett’s esophagus. So the consensus among the experts was that we need to remove GERD as an absolute prerequisite or we’re never going to make progress. In order to make an impact on the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma we have to increase the denominator of patients we are seeing,” Dr. Komanduri explained.

While it might be difficult to screen every White male over 50 years of age, the data do suggest screening those who also have obesity and/or are current smokers. “That’s a perfect subset you might want to start with. There are permutations that have greater value that don’t occupy unnecessary resource utilization. Most critical are the family history of esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus,” he noted.

Dr. Kaul said that a one-time Barrett’s esophagus screening of all White males over 50 years old “is not unreasonable, especially given the rising rates of esophageal cancer.”

However, he also noted, “The feasibility, preferred screening modality, incremental costs, and yield of this new strategy will need to be studied further. Access to GI endoscopy in the postpandemic world is already a concern and will need to be factored into execution of this [advice statement] and will likely impact adoption in some way.”

For his part, Dr. Komanduri said that more investigation will be needed to validate which patients most benefit from screening and that the AGA is planning educational programs for clinicians about interpreting this new paradigm.
 

New technology could make screening easier and cheaper

The availability of nonendoscopic cell collection devices, including the swallowable Cytosponge (Medtronic), EsoCheck (Lucid), and EsoCap (Capnostics) could help make screening for Barrett’s esophagus easier and more cost effective. They are designed for in-office use and don’t require sedation. Each one is currently in various stages of development and clinical trials. As of now they’re approved in the United States only for cell collection but not for Barrett’s esophagus screening, but their use is endorsed by some guidelines. The Cytosponge in particular is widely available and has been used extensively in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kaul commented, “While there is a need for nonendoscopic screening devices, the ideal patient population and practice setting for administration of these devices has not been clearly defined. Also, who will be delivering these tests: Primary care or gastroenterology providers? These devices ... represent a major step forward and a novel paradigm for Barrett’s esophagus screening, and the only platform that non-GI providers could use.”
 

Virtual chromoendoscopy: A must have in 2022

A third best practice advice statement shouldn’t be controversial because it’s in other guidelines already, but data show clinicians aren’t always doing it: Performing screening and surveillance endoscopic examinations using virtual chromoendoscopy in addition to high-definition white light endoscopy, with adequate time spent inspecting the Barrett’s segment. The majority of data supporting this is for narrow-band imaging only.

“The blue light lets you pick up early mucosal and vascular changes which might represent dysplastic lesions. It’s not a question of should. It’s a medicolegal slam dunk; you must do it. It’s been a guideline recommendation in the last few years, and it’s just a switch on the scope. It doesn’t require separate equipment, yet people are often still skipping it,” Dr. Komanduri said.

Indeed, Dr. Kaul concurred, “The importance of a high quality, meticulous endoscopic examination for screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus cannot be overemphasized.”
 

‘Finally pushing the needle in the right direction’

The overall goals, Dr. Komanduri said, are “increasing the denominator, using less invasive screening, but finding more patients. If we find more patients we’ll need to stratify their risk. We hope that all these things eventually tie together in a nice story, all with the aim of preventing an invasive cancer that can’t be treated.”

He believes the new update “is a pivotal document in this field that’s going to be a paradigm changer. A lot of aspects need further validation. It’s by no means the end. But I think we’re finally pushing the needle in the right direction as things move forward with innovation.”

Dr. Kaul agrees. “It’s highlighting the principles that may become established paradigms in the future.”

Dr. Komanduri and the other authors of the update reported relationships, including consulting and research support, with companies like Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Virgo Video Solutions, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Kaul serves as a consultant and advisory board member for CDx Diagnostics, an advisory board member for Castle Biosciences, and an investigator for Lucid Diagnostics.

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association offers practical advice around surveillance and use of new screening technologies for Barrett’s esophagus.

The AGA clinical practice update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology comes from the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. It offers 15 best practice advice statements based on expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion. The aim is “to provide an update on advances and innovation” but not to replace current guidelines.

“Guidelines operate on rigorous methodology which requires the use of [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation] methodology and a higher level of evidence. In gastroenterology especially, innovation is moving quickly and there’s no way for patients to reap their benefits if clinical practice was dictated by guidelines alone. That said, we do need documents that support and drive innovation in clinical practice,” corresponding author Srinadh Komanduri, MD, professor of medicine and surgery in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news publication.

Asked to comment, Vivek Kaul, MD, the Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said that the document is “an important attempt to not only present the available scientific literature in a very concise and understandable manner, but it goes above and beyond that in terms of diving into some novel paradigms and technologies and procedures that are either emerging or will be emerging in the near future.”
 

Improving detection by dropping GERD requirement

The first of the 15 statements may also be the most paradigm shifting: The panel suggests screening via standard upper endoscopy of people with at least three risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including those who are male, are non-Hispanic White, are aged above 50 years, and have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, or a family history of Barrett’s esophagus or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This represents a departure from all current guidelines, which stipulate GERD as a necessary prerequisite for screening. But the reason is simple, according to the authors: A majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer never experience classic GERD symptoms.

“There is growing evidence in high-level publications over the last couple of years that reflux is not the ideal predictor, based on odds, for development of Barrett’s esophagus. So the consensus among the experts was that we need to remove GERD as an absolute prerequisite or we’re never going to make progress. In order to make an impact on the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma we have to increase the denominator of patients we are seeing,” Dr. Komanduri explained.

While it might be difficult to screen every White male over 50 years of age, the data do suggest screening those who also have obesity and/or are current smokers. “That’s a perfect subset you might want to start with. There are permutations that have greater value that don’t occupy unnecessary resource utilization. Most critical are the family history of esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus,” he noted.

Dr. Kaul said that a one-time Barrett’s esophagus screening of all White males over 50 years old “is not unreasonable, especially given the rising rates of esophageal cancer.”

However, he also noted, “The feasibility, preferred screening modality, incremental costs, and yield of this new strategy will need to be studied further. Access to GI endoscopy in the postpandemic world is already a concern and will need to be factored into execution of this [advice statement] and will likely impact adoption in some way.”

For his part, Dr. Komanduri said that more investigation will be needed to validate which patients most benefit from screening and that the AGA is planning educational programs for clinicians about interpreting this new paradigm.
 

New technology could make screening easier and cheaper

The availability of nonendoscopic cell collection devices, including the swallowable Cytosponge (Medtronic), EsoCheck (Lucid), and EsoCap (Capnostics) could help make screening for Barrett’s esophagus easier and more cost effective. They are designed for in-office use and don’t require sedation. Each one is currently in various stages of development and clinical trials. As of now they’re approved in the United States only for cell collection but not for Barrett’s esophagus screening, but their use is endorsed by some guidelines. The Cytosponge in particular is widely available and has been used extensively in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kaul commented, “While there is a need for nonendoscopic screening devices, the ideal patient population and practice setting for administration of these devices has not been clearly defined. Also, who will be delivering these tests: Primary care or gastroenterology providers? These devices ... represent a major step forward and a novel paradigm for Barrett’s esophagus screening, and the only platform that non-GI providers could use.”
 

Virtual chromoendoscopy: A must have in 2022

A third best practice advice statement shouldn’t be controversial because it’s in other guidelines already, but data show clinicians aren’t always doing it: Performing screening and surveillance endoscopic examinations using virtual chromoendoscopy in addition to high-definition white light endoscopy, with adequate time spent inspecting the Barrett’s segment. The majority of data supporting this is for narrow-band imaging only.

“The blue light lets you pick up early mucosal and vascular changes which might represent dysplastic lesions. It’s not a question of should. It’s a medicolegal slam dunk; you must do it. It’s been a guideline recommendation in the last few years, and it’s just a switch on the scope. It doesn’t require separate equipment, yet people are often still skipping it,” Dr. Komanduri said.

Indeed, Dr. Kaul concurred, “The importance of a high quality, meticulous endoscopic examination for screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus cannot be overemphasized.”
 

‘Finally pushing the needle in the right direction’

The overall goals, Dr. Komanduri said, are “increasing the denominator, using less invasive screening, but finding more patients. If we find more patients we’ll need to stratify their risk. We hope that all these things eventually tie together in a nice story, all with the aim of preventing an invasive cancer that can’t be treated.”

He believes the new update “is a pivotal document in this field that’s going to be a paradigm changer. A lot of aspects need further validation. It’s by no means the end. But I think we’re finally pushing the needle in the right direction as things move forward with innovation.”

Dr. Kaul agrees. “It’s highlighting the principles that may become established paradigms in the future.”

Dr. Komanduri and the other authors of the update reported relationships, including consulting and research support, with companies like Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Virgo Video Solutions, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Kaul serves as a consultant and advisory board member for CDx Diagnostics, an advisory board member for Castle Biosciences, and an investigator for Lucid Diagnostics.

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association offers practical advice around surveillance and use of new screening technologies for Barrett’s esophagus.

The AGA clinical practice update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology comes from the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. It offers 15 best practice advice statements based on expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion. The aim is “to provide an update on advances and innovation” but not to replace current guidelines.

“Guidelines operate on rigorous methodology which requires the use of [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation] methodology and a higher level of evidence. In gastroenterology especially, innovation is moving quickly and there’s no way for patients to reap their benefits if clinical practice was dictated by guidelines alone. That said, we do need documents that support and drive innovation in clinical practice,” corresponding author Srinadh Komanduri, MD, professor of medicine and surgery in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news publication.

Asked to comment, Vivek Kaul, MD, the Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said that the document is “an important attempt to not only present the available scientific literature in a very concise and understandable manner, but it goes above and beyond that in terms of diving into some novel paradigms and technologies and procedures that are either emerging or will be emerging in the near future.”
 

Improving detection by dropping GERD requirement

The first of the 15 statements may also be the most paradigm shifting: The panel suggests screening via standard upper endoscopy of people with at least three risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including those who are male, are non-Hispanic White, are aged above 50 years, and have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, or a family history of Barrett’s esophagus or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This represents a departure from all current guidelines, which stipulate GERD as a necessary prerequisite for screening. But the reason is simple, according to the authors: A majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer never experience classic GERD symptoms.

“There is growing evidence in high-level publications over the last couple of years that reflux is not the ideal predictor, based on odds, for development of Barrett’s esophagus. So the consensus among the experts was that we need to remove GERD as an absolute prerequisite or we’re never going to make progress. In order to make an impact on the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma we have to increase the denominator of patients we are seeing,” Dr. Komanduri explained.

While it might be difficult to screen every White male over 50 years of age, the data do suggest screening those who also have obesity and/or are current smokers. “That’s a perfect subset you might want to start with. There are permutations that have greater value that don’t occupy unnecessary resource utilization. Most critical are the family history of esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus,” he noted.

Dr. Kaul said that a one-time Barrett’s esophagus screening of all White males over 50 years old “is not unreasonable, especially given the rising rates of esophageal cancer.”

However, he also noted, “The feasibility, preferred screening modality, incremental costs, and yield of this new strategy will need to be studied further. Access to GI endoscopy in the postpandemic world is already a concern and will need to be factored into execution of this [advice statement] and will likely impact adoption in some way.”

For his part, Dr. Komanduri said that more investigation will be needed to validate which patients most benefit from screening and that the AGA is planning educational programs for clinicians about interpreting this new paradigm.
 

New technology could make screening easier and cheaper

The availability of nonendoscopic cell collection devices, including the swallowable Cytosponge (Medtronic), EsoCheck (Lucid), and EsoCap (Capnostics) could help make screening for Barrett’s esophagus easier and more cost effective. They are designed for in-office use and don’t require sedation. Each one is currently in various stages of development and clinical trials. As of now they’re approved in the United States only for cell collection but not for Barrett’s esophagus screening, but their use is endorsed by some guidelines. The Cytosponge in particular is widely available and has been used extensively in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kaul commented, “While there is a need for nonendoscopic screening devices, the ideal patient population and practice setting for administration of these devices has not been clearly defined. Also, who will be delivering these tests: Primary care or gastroenterology providers? These devices ... represent a major step forward and a novel paradigm for Barrett’s esophagus screening, and the only platform that non-GI providers could use.”
 

Virtual chromoendoscopy: A must have in 2022

A third best practice advice statement shouldn’t be controversial because it’s in other guidelines already, but data show clinicians aren’t always doing it: Performing screening and surveillance endoscopic examinations using virtual chromoendoscopy in addition to high-definition white light endoscopy, with adequate time spent inspecting the Barrett’s segment. The majority of data supporting this is for narrow-band imaging only.

“The blue light lets you pick up early mucosal and vascular changes which might represent dysplastic lesions. It’s not a question of should. It’s a medicolegal slam dunk; you must do it. It’s been a guideline recommendation in the last few years, and it’s just a switch on the scope. It doesn’t require separate equipment, yet people are often still skipping it,” Dr. Komanduri said.

Indeed, Dr. Kaul concurred, “The importance of a high quality, meticulous endoscopic examination for screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus cannot be overemphasized.”
 

‘Finally pushing the needle in the right direction’

The overall goals, Dr. Komanduri said, are “increasing the denominator, using less invasive screening, but finding more patients. If we find more patients we’ll need to stratify their risk. We hope that all these things eventually tie together in a nice story, all with the aim of preventing an invasive cancer that can’t be treated.”

He believes the new update “is a pivotal document in this field that’s going to be a paradigm changer. A lot of aspects need further validation. It’s by no means the end. But I think we’re finally pushing the needle in the right direction as things move forward with innovation.”

Dr. Kaul agrees. “It’s highlighting the principles that may become established paradigms in the future.”

Dr. Komanduri and the other authors of the update reported relationships, including consulting and research support, with companies like Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Virgo Video Solutions, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Kaul serves as a consultant and advisory board member for CDx Diagnostics, an advisory board member for Castle Biosciences, and an investigator for Lucid Diagnostics.

New risk thresholds used to guide statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the latest European guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for statin use in low-risk countries, a new study has found.

The authors reported that new risk thresholds that were chosen for statin treatment in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines reduce statin eligibility to only 4% of the target population and essentially eliminate a statin indication in women.

“We have guidelines in place to try to prevent cardiovascular disease but the risk threshold in this new guideline means that almost nobody qualifies for treatment in many countries, which will lead to almost no prevention of future cardiovascular disease in those countries,” lead author Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, commented in an interview.

“We argue that the risk thresholds need to be lowered to get the statin eligibility in European countries to be in line with thresholds in the U.K. and U.S., which are based on randomized, controlled trials,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

An accompanying editorial describes the results of the study as “alarming,” and, if confirmed, said the guidelines should be revisited to “prevent a step backwards in the use of statins in primary prevention.”

For the study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues set out to compare the clinical performance of the new European prevention guidelines with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, United Kingdom–National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the 2019 European guidelines in a contemporary European cohort of 66,909 apparently healthy individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study.

During the 9-year follow-up, a range of 2,962-4,277 nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events was observed, as defined by the models in the various guidelines.

Results showed that although the new 2021 European guidelines introduced a new and improved risk model, known as SCORE2, the updated age-specific recommendations dramatically reduced eligibility for a class I recommendation for statin therapy to only 4% of individuals, aged 40-69 years, and less than 1% of women.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous 2019 European guidelines as well as current UK-NICE and US-ACC/AHA guidelines that provide class I/strong recommendations to 20%, 26%, and 34% of individuals, respectively, with better clinical performance in both men and women, the authors report.

The researchers also reported other analyses in which the sensitivity of the new European guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds.

Dr. Mortensen explained to this news organization that the original SCORE risk model used in ESC guidelines was problematic as it only predicts the 10-year risk of fatal atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, whereas those from the United States and United Kingdom used both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.

“Now the ESC has updated its model and the new model is much better in that it predicts both fatal and nonfatal events, and the predicted risk correlates well with the actual risk. So that’s a big step forward. However, the new thresholds for statin treatment are far too high for low-risk European countries because very few individuals will now qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

“The problem is that, if we use these guidelines, the vast majority of those individuals who will develop cardiovascular disease within 10 years will not be assigned statin therapy that can reduce this risk. There will be lots of individuals who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but these guidelines will not identify them as needing to take a statin,” Dr. Mortensen commented.

“If we use the U.K. or U.S. guidelines, far more people in these low-risk European countries would be eligible for statin therapy and we would prevent far more events than if we use the new ESC guidelines,” he added.

Dr. Mortensen explained that the problem arises from having four different risk score models in Europe for areas at different risk, but they all use the same risk thresholds for statin treatment.

“In general, Eastern European countries have higher risk than Western European countries, so these guidelines may work quite well in Eastern European countries but in low-risk Western European countries, where the low-risk score model is used, very few people will qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

While Dr. Mortensen is not against the idea of different risk models in areas that have different risks, he says this needs to be accompanied by different risk thresholds in the different risk areas.

Asked whether there is an argument that most individuals in low-risk countries may not need to take a statin, Dr. Mortensen countered: “One of the reasons the risk is low in many of these European countries is the high use of preventative medication. So, if a threshold that is too high is used most people will not take a statin anymore and the risk in these countries will increase again.”

Authors of the accompanying editorial, Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Pencina, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed with Dr. Mortensen that the problems appear to arise from use of a risk score that is highly influenced by regional cardiovascular burden.

They point out that under the current guidelines, a 55-year-old woman (smoker; systolic blood pressure, 130 mm Hg; non–HDL cholesterol, 4.0 mmol/L) would have a 10-year predicted risk of having a cardiovascular event of 5% in Denmark but a predicted risk of 18% in Romania.

“While there may be regional differences in environmental risk factors, location alone should not cause a fourfold difference in an individual’s predicted cardiovascular risk,” they wrote.

The editorialists also elaborated on Dr. Mortensen’s point that the new guideline creates a system that eventually becomes a victim of its own success.

“As countries are successful in implementing statin therapy to lower CVD, CVD rates drop, and progressively fewer individuals are then eligible for the very therapy that contributed to the decline in CVD in the first place,” they noted.

The editorialists called for the analysis to be replicated in other low-risk countries and extended to higher-risk regions, with a focus on potential overtreatment of men and older adults.

“If confirmed, the present findings should be a catalyst for the ESC to revisit or augment their current guidelines to prevent a step backward in the use of statins in primary prevention,” they concluded.

This news organization asked the ESC for a response to the findings, but did not comment by press time.

This work was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Copenhagen County Foundation, and Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Mortensen reported no disclosures.

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

New risk thresholds used to guide statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the latest European guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for statin use in low-risk countries, a new study has found.

The authors reported that new risk thresholds that were chosen for statin treatment in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines reduce statin eligibility to only 4% of the target population and essentially eliminate a statin indication in women.

“We have guidelines in place to try to prevent cardiovascular disease but the risk threshold in this new guideline means that almost nobody qualifies for treatment in many countries, which will lead to almost no prevention of future cardiovascular disease in those countries,” lead author Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, commented in an interview.

“We argue that the risk thresholds need to be lowered to get the statin eligibility in European countries to be in line with thresholds in the U.K. and U.S., which are based on randomized, controlled trials,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

An accompanying editorial describes the results of the study as “alarming,” and, if confirmed, said the guidelines should be revisited to “prevent a step backwards in the use of statins in primary prevention.”

For the study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues set out to compare the clinical performance of the new European prevention guidelines with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, United Kingdom–National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the 2019 European guidelines in a contemporary European cohort of 66,909 apparently healthy individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study.

During the 9-year follow-up, a range of 2,962-4,277 nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events was observed, as defined by the models in the various guidelines.

Results showed that although the new 2021 European guidelines introduced a new and improved risk model, known as SCORE2, the updated age-specific recommendations dramatically reduced eligibility for a class I recommendation for statin therapy to only 4% of individuals, aged 40-69 years, and less than 1% of women.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous 2019 European guidelines as well as current UK-NICE and US-ACC/AHA guidelines that provide class I/strong recommendations to 20%, 26%, and 34% of individuals, respectively, with better clinical performance in both men and women, the authors report.

The researchers also reported other analyses in which the sensitivity of the new European guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds.

Dr. Mortensen explained to this news organization that the original SCORE risk model used in ESC guidelines was problematic as it only predicts the 10-year risk of fatal atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, whereas those from the United States and United Kingdom used both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.

“Now the ESC has updated its model and the new model is much better in that it predicts both fatal and nonfatal events, and the predicted risk correlates well with the actual risk. So that’s a big step forward. However, the new thresholds for statin treatment are far too high for low-risk European countries because very few individuals will now qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

“The problem is that, if we use these guidelines, the vast majority of those individuals who will develop cardiovascular disease within 10 years will not be assigned statin therapy that can reduce this risk. There will be lots of individuals who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but these guidelines will not identify them as needing to take a statin,” Dr. Mortensen commented.

“If we use the U.K. or U.S. guidelines, far more people in these low-risk European countries would be eligible for statin therapy and we would prevent far more events than if we use the new ESC guidelines,” he added.

Dr. Mortensen explained that the problem arises from having four different risk score models in Europe for areas at different risk, but they all use the same risk thresholds for statin treatment.

“In general, Eastern European countries have higher risk than Western European countries, so these guidelines may work quite well in Eastern European countries but in low-risk Western European countries, where the low-risk score model is used, very few people will qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

While Dr. Mortensen is not against the idea of different risk models in areas that have different risks, he says this needs to be accompanied by different risk thresholds in the different risk areas.

Asked whether there is an argument that most individuals in low-risk countries may not need to take a statin, Dr. Mortensen countered: “One of the reasons the risk is low in many of these European countries is the high use of preventative medication. So, if a threshold that is too high is used most people will not take a statin anymore and the risk in these countries will increase again.”

Authors of the accompanying editorial, Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Pencina, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed with Dr. Mortensen that the problems appear to arise from use of a risk score that is highly influenced by regional cardiovascular burden.

They point out that under the current guidelines, a 55-year-old woman (smoker; systolic blood pressure, 130 mm Hg; non–HDL cholesterol, 4.0 mmol/L) would have a 10-year predicted risk of having a cardiovascular event of 5% in Denmark but a predicted risk of 18% in Romania.

“While there may be regional differences in environmental risk factors, location alone should not cause a fourfold difference in an individual’s predicted cardiovascular risk,” they wrote.

The editorialists also elaborated on Dr. Mortensen’s point that the new guideline creates a system that eventually becomes a victim of its own success.

“As countries are successful in implementing statin therapy to lower CVD, CVD rates drop, and progressively fewer individuals are then eligible for the very therapy that contributed to the decline in CVD in the first place,” they noted.

The editorialists called for the analysis to be replicated in other low-risk countries and extended to higher-risk regions, with a focus on potential overtreatment of men and older adults.

“If confirmed, the present findings should be a catalyst for the ESC to revisit or augment their current guidelines to prevent a step backward in the use of statins in primary prevention,” they concluded.

This news organization asked the ESC for a response to the findings, but did not comment by press time.

This work was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Copenhagen County Foundation, and Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Mortensen reported no disclosures.

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

New risk thresholds used to guide statin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the latest European guidelines dramatically reduce eligibility for statin use in low-risk countries, a new study has found.

The authors reported that new risk thresholds that were chosen for statin treatment in the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines reduce statin eligibility to only 4% of the target population and essentially eliminate a statin indication in women.

“We have guidelines in place to try to prevent cardiovascular disease but the risk threshold in this new guideline means that almost nobody qualifies for treatment in many countries, which will lead to almost no prevention of future cardiovascular disease in those countries,” lead author Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, commented in an interview.

“We argue that the risk thresholds need to be lowered to get the statin eligibility in European countries to be in line with thresholds in the U.K. and U.S., which are based on randomized, controlled trials,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

An accompanying editorial describes the results of the study as “alarming,” and, if confirmed, said the guidelines should be revisited to “prevent a step backwards in the use of statins in primary prevention.”

For the study, Dr. Mortensen and colleagues set out to compare the clinical performance of the new European prevention guidelines with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, United Kingdom–National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and the 2019 European guidelines in a contemporary European cohort of 66,909 apparently healthy individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study.

During the 9-year follow-up, a range of 2,962-4,277 nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events was observed, as defined by the models in the various guidelines.

Results showed that although the new 2021 European guidelines introduced a new and improved risk model, known as SCORE2, the updated age-specific recommendations dramatically reduced eligibility for a class I recommendation for statin therapy to only 4% of individuals, aged 40-69 years, and less than 1% of women.

This is in sharp contrast to the previous 2019 European guidelines as well as current UK-NICE and US-ACC/AHA guidelines that provide class I/strong recommendations to 20%, 26%, and 34% of individuals, respectively, with better clinical performance in both men and women, the authors report.

The researchers also reported other analyses in which the sensitivity of the new European guidelines was improved considerably by lowering the treatment thresholds.

Dr. Mortensen explained to this news organization that the original SCORE risk model used in ESC guidelines was problematic as it only predicts the 10-year risk of fatal atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, whereas those from the United States and United Kingdom used both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events.

“Now the ESC has updated its model and the new model is much better in that it predicts both fatal and nonfatal events, and the predicted risk correlates well with the actual risk. So that’s a big step forward. However, the new thresholds for statin treatment are far too high for low-risk European countries because very few individuals will now qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

“The problem is that, if we use these guidelines, the vast majority of those individuals who will develop cardiovascular disease within 10 years will not be assigned statin therapy that can reduce this risk. There will be lots of individuals who are at high risk of cardiovascular disease, but these guidelines will not identify them as needing to take a statin,” Dr. Mortensen commented.

“If we use the U.K. or U.S. guidelines, far more people in these low-risk European countries would be eligible for statin therapy and we would prevent far more events than if we use the new ESC guidelines,” he added.

Dr. Mortensen explained that the problem arises from having four different risk score models in Europe for areas at different risk, but they all use the same risk thresholds for statin treatment.

“In general, Eastern European countries have higher risk than Western European countries, so these guidelines may work quite well in Eastern European countries but in low-risk Western European countries, where the low-risk score model is used, very few people will qualify for statin therapy,” he said.

While Dr. Mortensen is not against the idea of different risk models in areas that have different risks, he says this needs to be accompanied by different risk thresholds in the different risk areas.

Asked whether there is an argument that most individuals in low-risk countries may not need to take a statin, Dr. Mortensen countered: “One of the reasons the risk is low in many of these European countries is the high use of preventative medication. So, if a threshold that is too high is used most people will not take a statin anymore and the risk in these countries will increase again.”

Authors of the accompanying editorial, Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas; Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, University of California, Los Angeles; and Michael J. Pencina, PhD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., agreed with Dr. Mortensen that the problems appear to arise from use of a risk score that is highly influenced by regional cardiovascular burden.

They point out that under the current guidelines, a 55-year-old woman (smoker; systolic blood pressure, 130 mm Hg; non–HDL cholesterol, 4.0 mmol/L) would have a 10-year predicted risk of having a cardiovascular event of 5% in Denmark but a predicted risk of 18% in Romania.

“While there may be regional differences in environmental risk factors, location alone should not cause a fourfold difference in an individual’s predicted cardiovascular risk,” they wrote.

The editorialists also elaborated on Dr. Mortensen’s point that the new guideline creates a system that eventually becomes a victim of its own success.

“As countries are successful in implementing statin therapy to lower CVD, CVD rates drop, and progressively fewer individuals are then eligible for the very therapy that contributed to the decline in CVD in the first place,” they noted.

The editorialists called for the analysis to be replicated in other low-risk countries and extended to higher-risk regions, with a focus on potential overtreatment of men and older adults.

“If confirmed, the present findings should be a catalyst for the ESC to revisit or augment their current guidelines to prevent a step backward in the use of statins in primary prevention,” they concluded.

This news organization asked the ESC for a response to the findings, but did not comment by press time.

This work was supported by the Lundbeck Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, the Copenhagen County Foundation, and Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Mortensen reported no disclosures.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 80% of American adults have low to moderate cardiovascular (CV) health based on the American Heart Association checklist for optimal heart health, which now includes healthy sleep as an essential component for heart health.

With the addition of sleep, “Life’s Essential 8” replaces the AHA’s “Life’s Simple 7” checklist.

“The new metric of sleep duration reflects the latest research findings: Sleep impacts overall health, and people who have healthier sleep patterns manage health factors such as weight, blood pressure, or risk for type 2 diabetes more effectively,” AHA President Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD, said in a news release.

“In addition, advances in ways to measure sleep, such as with wearable devices, now offer people the ability to reliably and routinely monitor their sleep habits at home,” said Dr. Lloyd-Jones, chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago.

The AHA Presidential Advisory – Life’s Essential 8: Updating and Enhancing the American Heart Association’s Construct on Cardiovascular Health – was published online in the journal Circulation.

A companion paper published simultaneously in Circulation reports the first study using Life’s Essential 8.

Overall, the results show that CV health of the U.S. population is “suboptimal, and we see important differences across age and sociodemographic groups,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.
 

Refining Life’s Simple 7

The AHA first defined the seven metrics for optimal CV health in 2010. After 12 years and more than 2,400 scientific papers on the topic, new discoveries in CV health and ways to measure it provided an opportunity to revisit each health component in more detail and provide updates as needed, the AHA explains.

“We felt it was the right time to conduct a comprehensive review of the latest research to refine the existing metrics and consider any new metrics that add value to assessing cardiovascular health for all people,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

Four of the original metrics have been redefined for consistency with newer clinical guidelines or compatibility with new measurement tools, and the scoring system can now also be applied to anyone ages 2 and older. Here is a snapshot of Life’s Essential 8 metrics, including updates.

1. Diet (updated) 

The tool includes a new guide to assess diet quality for adults and children at the individual and population level. At the population level, dietary assessment is based on daily intake of elements in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern. For individuals, the Mediterranean Eating Pattern for Americans (MEPA) is used to assess and monitor cardiovascular health.

2. Physical activity (no changes)

Physical activity continues to be measured by the total number of minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week, as defined by the U.S. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (2nd edition). The optimal level is 150 minutes (2.5 hours) of moderate physical activity or more per week or 75 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity physical activity for adults; 420 minutes (7 hours) or more per week for children ages 6 and older; and age-specific modifications for younger children.

3. Nicotine exposure (updated)

Use of inhaled nicotine-delivery systems, which includes e-cigarettes or vaping devices, has been added since the previous metric monitored only traditional, combustible cigarettes. This reflects use by adults and youth and their implications on long-term health. Second-hand smoke exposure for children and adults has also been added.

4. Sleep duration (new)

Sleep duration is associated with CV health. Measured by average hours of sleep per night, the ideal level is 7-9 hours daily for adults. Ideal daily sleep ranges for children are 10-16 hours per 24 hours for ages 5 and younger; 9-12 hours for ages 6-12 years; and 8-10 hours for ages 13-18 years.

5. Body mass index (no changes)

The AHA acknowledges that body mass index (BMI) is an imperfect metric. Yet, because it’s easily calculated and widely available, BMI continues as a “reasonable” gauge to assess weight categories that may lead to health problems. BMI of 18.5-24.9 is associated with the highest levels of CV health. The AHA notes that BMI ranges and the subsequent health risks associated with them may differ among people from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds or ancestry. This aligns with the World Health Organization recommendations to adjust BMI ranges for people of Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry because recent evidence indicates their risk of conditions such as CVD or type 2 diabetes is higher at a lower BMI.

6. Blood lipids (updated)

The metric for blood lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) is updated to use non-HDL cholesterol as the preferred number to monitor, rather than total cholesterol. This shift is made because non-HDL cholesterol can be measured without fasting beforehand (thereby increasing its availability at any time of day and implementation at more appointments) and reliably calculated among all people.

7. Blood glucose (updated)

This metric is expanded to include the option of hemoglobin A1c readings or blood glucose levels for people with or without type 1 or 2 diabetes or prediabetes.

8. Blood pressure (no changes)

Blood pressure criteria remain unchanged from 2017 guidance that established levels less than 120/80 mm Hg as optimal, and defined hypertension as 130-139 mm Hg systolic pressure or 80-89 mm Hg diastolic pressure.

‘Concerning’ new data

Results of the first study using Life’s Essential 8 show that the overall CV health of the U.S. population is “well below ideal,” with 80% of adults scoring at a low or moderate level, the researchers report.

Data for the analysis came from 2013-2018 U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination surveys (NHANES) of more than 13,500 adults aged 20-79 years and nearly 9,900 children aged 2-19 years. Among the key findings:

• The average CV health score based on Life’s Essential 8 was 64.7 for adults and 65.5 for children – in the moderate range on the 0-100 scale.
• Only 0.45% of adults had a perfect score of 100; 20% had high CV health (score of 80 or higher), 63% moderate (score of 50-79), and 18% had low CV health (score of less than 50).
• Adult women had higher average CV health scores (67) compared with men (62.5).
• In general, adults scored lowest in the areas of diet, physical activity, and BMI.
• CV health scores were generally lower at older ages.
• Non-Hispanic Asian Americans had a higher average CV health score than other racial/ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Whites had the second highest average CV health score, followed, in order, by Hispanic (other than Mexican), Mexican, and non-Hispanic Blacks.
• Children’s diet scores were low, at an average of 40.6.
• Adult sociodemographic groups varied notably in CV health scores for diet, nicotine exposure, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

“These data represent the first look at the cardiovascular health of the U.S. population using the AHA’s new Life’s Essential 8 scoring algorithm,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones said.

“Life’s Essential 8 is a major step forward in our ability to identify when cardiovascular health can be preserved and when it is suboptimal. It should energize efforts to improve cardiovascular health for all people and at every life stage,” Dr. Lloyd-Jones added.

“Analyses like this can help policymakers, communities, clinicians, and the public to understand the opportunities to intervene to improve and maintain optimal cardiovascular health across the life course,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. The authors have no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large meta-analysis sheds light on the best antipsychotic maintenance strategy to prevent relapse in clinically stable schizophrenia – with some unexpected results that have potential implications for changes to current guidelines.

Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, continuing antipsychotic treatment at the standard dose, switching to another antipsychotic, and reducing the dose were all significantly more effective than stopping antipsychotic treatment in preventing relapse.

However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, which was based on current literature, switching to another antipsychotic was just as effective as continuing an antipsychotic at the standard dose.

Switching to another antipsychotic “does not increase the risk of relapse. This result was not expected, as previous literature suggested otherwise,” Giovanni Ostuzzi, MD, PhD, with University of Verona (Italy) said in an interview.

“On the other hand, reducing the dose below the standard range used in the acute phase carries a tangible risk of relapse, and should be limited to selected cases, for example those where the risk of withdrawing the treatment altogether is particularly high,” Dr. Ostuzzi said.

“These results should inform evidence-based guidelines, considering that clinical practices for relapse prevention are still heterogeneous and too often guided by clinical common sense only,” he added.

The study was published online in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Guideline update warranted

The researchers evaluated the effect of different antipsychotic treatment strategies on risk for relapse in a network meta-analysis of 98 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving nearly 14,000 patients.

Compared to stopping the antipsychotic, all continuation strategies were effective in preventing relapse.

The risk for relapse was largely (and similarly) reduced when continuing the antipsychotic at the standard dose or switching to a different antipsychotic (relative risk, 0.37 and RR, 0.44, respectively), the researchers found.

Both strategies outperformed the strategy of reducing the antipsychotic dose below the standard (RR, 0.68), which was inferior to the other two strategies.

For every three patients continuing an antipsychotic at standard doses, one additional patient will avoid relapse, compared with patients stopping an antipsychotic, “which can be regarded as a large-effect magnitude according to commonly used thresholds and results from RCTs in acute schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The number needed to treat (NNT) slightly increased to about 3.5 for patients who switched antipsychotic treatment – “still regarded as a large-effect magnitude,” they note.

“Currently, most psychiatrists are aware of the benefits of continuing antipsychotics in clinically stable individuals. However, they might face the necessity of changing the ongoing treatment strategy, generally because of burdening side effects, poor adherence, or both,” said Dr. Ostuzzi.

“Our findings support updating clinical guidelines to recognize that switching to another antipsychotic during maintenance treatment can be as effective as continuing antipsychotics at standard dose, whereas dose reduction below standard doses should be limited to selected cases,” the investigators write.
 

More to the story

In an accompanying editorial, Marieke J.H. Begemann, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and colleagues note the large number of patients included in the analysis provide “great credibility” to the findings, which are “trustworthy and important, yet only tell part of the story.”

They note that, while tapering information was often missing, antipsychotic discontinuation was probably abrupt for about two-thirds of the included studies. 

“The issue of slow versus swift tapering is not yet settled, as there is a scarcity of RCTs that provide very gradual tapering over several months,” the editorialists write.

To fill this gap, several randomized trials are now in progress to specifically address the effects of gradual tapering or discontinuation vs. antipsychotic maintenance treatment in clinically stable schizophrenia.

“Time is pressing, as patients, their families, and clinicians need evidence-based data to weigh up the risks and benefits of maintaining, switching, or reducing medication with respect to a range of outcomes that are important to them, including social functioning, cognition, physical health, sexual health, and quality of life, thus going well beyond relapse prevention,” the editorialists note.

“Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are heterogeneous with a largely unpredictable course, and we have known for a long time that a substantial proportion of patients who experienced a first psychosis can manage without antipsychotic medication. The challenge for future research is therefore to identify this subgroup on the basis of individual characteristics and guide them in tapering medication safely,” they add.

The study had no funding source. Dr. Ostuzzi reports no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large meta-analysis sheds light on the best antipsychotic maintenance strategy to prevent relapse in clinically stable schizophrenia – with some unexpected results that have potential implications for changes to current guidelines.

Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, continuing antipsychotic treatment at the standard dose, switching to another antipsychotic, and reducing the dose were all significantly more effective than stopping antipsychotic treatment in preventing relapse.

However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, which was based on current literature, switching to another antipsychotic was just as effective as continuing an antipsychotic at the standard dose.

Switching to another antipsychotic “does not increase the risk of relapse. This result was not expected, as previous literature suggested otherwise,” Giovanni Ostuzzi, MD, PhD, with University of Verona (Italy) said in an interview.

“On the other hand, reducing the dose below the standard range used in the acute phase carries a tangible risk of relapse, and should be limited to selected cases, for example those where the risk of withdrawing the treatment altogether is particularly high,” Dr. Ostuzzi said.

“These results should inform evidence-based guidelines, considering that clinical practices for relapse prevention are still heterogeneous and too often guided by clinical common sense only,” he added.

The study was published online in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Guideline update warranted

The researchers evaluated the effect of different antipsychotic treatment strategies on risk for relapse in a network meta-analysis of 98 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving nearly 14,000 patients.

Compared to stopping the antipsychotic, all continuation strategies were effective in preventing relapse.

The risk for relapse was largely (and similarly) reduced when continuing the antipsychotic at the standard dose or switching to a different antipsychotic (relative risk, 0.37 and RR, 0.44, respectively), the researchers found.

Both strategies outperformed the strategy of reducing the antipsychotic dose below the standard (RR, 0.68), which was inferior to the other two strategies.

For every three patients continuing an antipsychotic at standard doses, one additional patient will avoid relapse, compared with patients stopping an antipsychotic, “which can be regarded as a large-effect magnitude according to commonly used thresholds and results from RCTs in acute schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The number needed to treat (NNT) slightly increased to about 3.5 for patients who switched antipsychotic treatment – “still regarded as a large-effect magnitude,” they note.

“Currently, most psychiatrists are aware of the benefits of continuing antipsychotics in clinically stable individuals. However, they might face the necessity of changing the ongoing treatment strategy, generally because of burdening side effects, poor adherence, or both,” said Dr. Ostuzzi.

“Our findings support updating clinical guidelines to recognize that switching to another antipsychotic during maintenance treatment can be as effective as continuing antipsychotics at standard dose, whereas dose reduction below standard doses should be limited to selected cases,” the investigators write.
 

More to the story

In an accompanying editorial, Marieke J.H. Begemann, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and colleagues note the large number of patients included in the analysis provide “great credibility” to the findings, which are “trustworthy and important, yet only tell part of the story.”

They note that, while tapering information was often missing, antipsychotic discontinuation was probably abrupt for about two-thirds of the included studies. 

“The issue of slow versus swift tapering is not yet settled, as there is a scarcity of RCTs that provide very gradual tapering over several months,” the editorialists write.

To fill this gap, several randomized trials are now in progress to specifically address the effects of gradual tapering or discontinuation vs. antipsychotic maintenance treatment in clinically stable schizophrenia.

“Time is pressing, as patients, their families, and clinicians need evidence-based data to weigh up the risks and benefits of maintaining, switching, or reducing medication with respect to a range of outcomes that are important to them, including social functioning, cognition, physical health, sexual health, and quality of life, thus going well beyond relapse prevention,” the editorialists note.

“Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are heterogeneous with a largely unpredictable course, and we have known for a long time that a substantial proportion of patients who experienced a first psychosis can manage without antipsychotic medication. The challenge for future research is therefore to identify this subgroup on the basis of individual characteristics and guide them in tapering medication safely,” they add.

The study had no funding source. Dr. Ostuzzi reports no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large meta-analysis sheds light on the best antipsychotic maintenance strategy to prevent relapse in clinically stable schizophrenia – with some unexpected results that have potential implications for changes to current guidelines.

Consistent with the researchers’ hypothesis, continuing antipsychotic treatment at the standard dose, switching to another antipsychotic, and reducing the dose were all significantly more effective than stopping antipsychotic treatment in preventing relapse.

However, contrary to the researchers’ hypothesis, which was based on current literature, switching to another antipsychotic was just as effective as continuing an antipsychotic at the standard dose.

Switching to another antipsychotic “does not increase the risk of relapse. This result was not expected, as previous literature suggested otherwise,” Giovanni Ostuzzi, MD, PhD, with University of Verona (Italy) said in an interview.

“On the other hand, reducing the dose below the standard range used in the acute phase carries a tangible risk of relapse, and should be limited to selected cases, for example those where the risk of withdrawing the treatment altogether is particularly high,” Dr. Ostuzzi said.

“These results should inform evidence-based guidelines, considering that clinical practices for relapse prevention are still heterogeneous and too often guided by clinical common sense only,” he added.

The study was published online in Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Guideline update warranted

The researchers evaluated the effect of different antipsychotic treatment strategies on risk for relapse in a network meta-analysis of 98 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving nearly 14,000 patients.

Compared to stopping the antipsychotic, all continuation strategies were effective in preventing relapse.

The risk for relapse was largely (and similarly) reduced when continuing the antipsychotic at the standard dose or switching to a different antipsychotic (relative risk, 0.37 and RR, 0.44, respectively), the researchers found.

Both strategies outperformed the strategy of reducing the antipsychotic dose below the standard (RR, 0.68), which was inferior to the other two strategies.

For every three patients continuing an antipsychotic at standard doses, one additional patient will avoid relapse, compared with patients stopping an antipsychotic, “which can be regarded as a large-effect magnitude according to commonly used thresholds and results from RCTs in acute schizophrenia,” the researchers write.

The number needed to treat (NNT) slightly increased to about 3.5 for patients who switched antipsychotic treatment – “still regarded as a large-effect magnitude,” they note.

“Currently, most psychiatrists are aware of the benefits of continuing antipsychotics in clinically stable individuals. However, they might face the necessity of changing the ongoing treatment strategy, generally because of burdening side effects, poor adherence, or both,” said Dr. Ostuzzi.

“Our findings support updating clinical guidelines to recognize that switching to another antipsychotic during maintenance treatment can be as effective as continuing antipsychotics at standard dose, whereas dose reduction below standard doses should be limited to selected cases,” the investigators write.
 

More to the story

In an accompanying editorial, Marieke J.H. Begemann, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen (the Netherlands) and colleagues note the large number of patients included in the analysis provide “great credibility” to the findings, which are “trustworthy and important, yet only tell part of the story.”

They note that, while tapering information was often missing, antipsychotic discontinuation was probably abrupt for about two-thirds of the included studies. 

“The issue of slow versus swift tapering is not yet settled, as there is a scarcity of RCTs that provide very gradual tapering over several months,” the editorialists write.

To fill this gap, several randomized trials are now in progress to specifically address the effects of gradual tapering or discontinuation vs. antipsychotic maintenance treatment in clinically stable schizophrenia.

“Time is pressing, as patients, their families, and clinicians need evidence-based data to weigh up the risks and benefits of maintaining, switching, or reducing medication with respect to a range of outcomes that are important to them, including social functioning, cognition, physical health, sexual health, and quality of life, thus going well beyond relapse prevention,” the editorialists note.

“Schizophrenia-spectrum disorders are heterogeneous with a largely unpredictable course, and we have known for a long time that a substantial proportion of patients who experienced a first psychosis can manage without antipsychotic medication. The challenge for future research is therefore to identify this subgroup on the basis of individual characteristics and guide them in tapering medication safely,” they add.

The study had no funding source. Dr. Ostuzzi reports no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have jointly issued a comprehensive set of data standards to help clarify definitions of the cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV complications of COVID-19.

It’s the work of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Data Standards and has been endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America and Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions.

There is increased importance to understanding the acute and long-term impact of COVID-19 on CV health, the writing group notes. Until now, however, there has not been “clarity or consensus” on definitions of CV conditions related to COVID-19, with different diagnostic terminologies being used for overlapping conditions, such as “myocardial injury,” “myocarditis,” “type Il myocardial infarction,” “stress cardiomyopathy,” and “inflammatory cardiomyopathy,” they point out.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“We, as a research community, did some things right and some things wrong surrounding the COVID pandemic,” Sandeep Das, MD, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, noted in an interview with this news organization.

“The things that we really did right is that everybody responded with enthusiasm, kind of all hands on deck with a massive crisis response, and that was fantastic,” Dr. Das said.

“However, because of the need to hurry, we didn’t structure and organize in the way that we typically would for something that was sort of a slow burn kind of problem rather than an emergency. One of the consequences of that was fragmentation of how things are collected, reported, et cetera, and that leads to confusion,” he added.

The report was published simultaneously June 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

A necessary but not glamorous project

The new data standards for COVID-19 will help standardize definitions and set the framework to capture and better understand how COVID-19 affects CV health.

“It wasn’t exactly a glamorous-type project but, at the same time, it’s super necessary to kind of get everybody on the same page and working together,” Dr. Das said. 

Broad agreement on common vocabulary and definitions will help with efforts to pool or compare data from electronic health records, clinical registries, administrative datasets, and other databases, and determine whether these data apply to clinical practice and research endeavors, the writing group says.

They considered data elements relevant to the full range of care provided to COVID-19 patients in all care settings. Among the key items included in the document are:

• Case definitions for confirmed, probable, and suspected acute COVID-19, as well as postacute sequelae of COVID-19.
• Definitions for acute CV complications related to COVID-19, including acute myocardial injury, heart failure, shock, arrhythmia, thromboembolic complications, and .
• Data elements related to COVID-19 vaccination status, comorbidities, and preexisting CV conditions.
• Definitions for postacute CV sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term CV complications of COVID-19.
• Data elements for CV mortality during acute COVID-19.
• Data elements for non-CV complications to help document severity of illness and other competing diagnoses and complications that might affect CV outcomes.
• A list of symptoms and signs related to COVID-19 and CV complications.
• Data elements for diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for COVID-19 and CV conditions.
• A discussion of advanced therapies, including , extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and end-of-life management strategies.

These data standards will be useful for researchers, registry developers, and clinicians, and they are proposed as a framework for ICD-10 code development of COVID-19–related CV conditions, the writing group says.

The standards are also of “great importance” to patients, clinicians, investigators, scientists, administrators, public health officials, policymakers, and payers, the group says.

Dr. Das said that, although there is no formal plan in place to update the document, he could see sections that might be refined.

“For example, there’s a nice long list of all the various variants, and unfortunately, I suspect that that is going to change and evolve over time,” Dr. Das told this news organization.

“We tried very hard not to include things like specifying specific treatments so we didn’t get proscriptive. We wanted to make it descriptive, so hopefully it will stand the test of time pretty well,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. The writing group has no relevant disclosures.

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

There is not enough evidence to recommend for or against taking most vitamin and mineral supplements to prevent heart disease, stroke, and cancer, a new report by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes.

However, there are two vitamins – vitamin E and beta-carotene – that the task force recommends against for the prevention of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. Evidence shows that there is no benefit to taking vitamin E and that beta-carotene can increase the risk for lung cancer in people already at risk, such as smokers and those with occupational exposure to asbestos.

sodapix/thinkstockphotos.com

These are the main findings of the USPSTF’s final recommendation statement on vitamin, mineral, and multivitamin supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. The statement was published in JAMA.

“This is essentially the same recommendation that the task force made in 2014,” USPSTF member John Wong, MD, professor of medicine at Tufts University, Boston, said in an interview.

“We recognize that over half of people in the U.S. take a vitamin supplement of some sort every day and 30% take a vitamin/mineral combination. We wanted to review the evidence again to see if there was any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer or increasing the chances of living longer,” Dr. Wong explained.

“We looked hard for evidence, reviewing 84 studies in total. But we did not find sufficient evidence in favor of taking or not taking vitamins, with the two exceptions of beta-carotene and vitamin E, which we recommend against taking,” he noted.

Although there is evidence of some harm with beta-carotene, the main reason behind the recommendation against taking vitamin E is the consistent evidence of no benefit, Dr. Wong explained.

“While the evidence for some other vitamins is conflicting, there is more consistent evidence of no benefit for vitamin E,” he said.

The bulk of new evidence since the last review in 2014 was predominately for vitamin D supplementation, but despite the inclusion of 32 new randomized, controlled trials and two cohort studies, pooled estimates for all-cause mortality were similar to those in the previous review, with confidence intervals only slightly crossing 1, and point estimates that suggest at most a very small benefit, the task force noted.

“Apart from beta-carotene and vitamin E, after reviewing 84 studies – including 78 randomized controlled trials – in over a million patients, we can find no clear demonstration of benefit or harm of taking vitamins in terms of developing cardiovascular disease or cancer or the effect on all-cause mortality. So, we don’t know whether people should take vitamins or not, and we need more research,” Dr. Wong added.

On the use of a multivitamin supplement, Dr. Wong noted that the complete body of evidence did not find any benefit of taking a multivitamin on cardiovascular or cancer mortality. But there was a small reduction in cancer incidence.

However, he pointed out that the three studies that suggested a reduction in cancer incidence all had issues regarding generalizability.

“The recently published COSMOS trial had an average follow-up of only 3.6 years, which isn’t really long enough when thinking about the prevention of cancer, one of the other studies only used antioxidants, and the third study was conducted only in U.S. male physicians. So those limitations regarding generalizability limited our confidence in making recommendations about multivitamins,” Dr. Wong explained.

But he noted that the task force did not find any significant harms from taking multivitamins.

“There are possible harms from taking high doses of vitamin A and vitamin D, but generally the doses contained in a multivitamin tablet are lower than these. But if the goal for taking a multivitamin is to lower your risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease, we didn’t find sufficient evidence to be able to make a recommendation,” he said.

Asked what he would say to all the people currently taking multivitamins, Dr. Wong responded that he would advise them to have a conversation with a trusted health care professional about their particular circumstances.

“Our statement has quite a narrow focus. It is directed toward community-dwelling, nonpregnant adults. This recommendation does not apply to children, persons who are pregnant or may become pregnant, or persons who are chronically ill, are hospitalized, or have a known nutritional deficiency,” he commented.
 

‘Any benefit likely to be small’

In an editorial accompanying the publication of the USPSTF statement, Jenny Jia, MD; Natalie Cameron, MD; and Jeffrey Linder, MD – all from Northwestern University, Chicago – noted that the current evidence base includes 52 additional studies not available when the last USPSTF recommendation on this topic was published in 2014.

The editorialists pointed out that for multivitamins, proving the absence of a benefit is challenging, but at best, current evidence suggests that any potential benefits of a multivitamin to reduce mortality are likely to be small.

They gave an example of a healthy 65-year-old woman with a 9-year estimated mortality risk of about 8%, and note that taking a multivitamin for 5-10 years might reduce her estimated mortality risk to 7.5% (based on an odds ratio of 0.94).

“In addition to showing small potential benefit, this estimate is based on imperfect evidence, is imprecise, and is highly sensitive to how the data are interpreted and analyzed,” they said.

The editorialists recommended that lifestyle counseling to prevent chronic diseases should continue to focus on evidence-based approaches, including balanced diets that are high in fruits and vegetables and physical activity.

However, they added that healthy eating can be a challenge when the American industrialized food system does not prioritize health, and healthy foods tend to be more expensive, leading to access problems and food insecurity.

The editorialists suggested that, rather than focusing money, time, and attention on supplements, it would be better to emphasize lower-risk, higher-benefit activities, such as getting exercise, maintaining a healthy weight, and avoiding smoking, in addition to following a healthful diet.
 

Possible benefit for older adults?

Commenting on the USPSTF statement, JoAnn Manson, MD, chief, division of preventive medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who led the recent COSMOS study, said that vitamin and mineral supplements should not be perceived as a substitute for a healthful diet.

“The emphasis needs to be on getting nutritional needs from a healthy diet that is high in plant-based and whole foods that don’t strip the vitamins and minerals through excessive processing,” she said. “Although it’s easier to pop a pill each day than to focus on healthful dietary patterns, the mixture of phytochemicals, fiber, and all the other nutrients in actual foods just can’t be packaged into a pill. Also, vitamins and minerals tend to be better absorbed from food than from supplements and healthy foods can replace calories from less healthy foods, such as red meat and processed foods.”

However, Dr. Manson noted that the evidence is mounting that taking a tablet containing moderate doses of a wide range of vitamins and minerals is safe and may actually have benefits for some people.

She pointed out that the COSMOS and COSMOS-Mind studies showed benefits of multivitamins in slowing cognitive decline in older adults, but the findings need to be replicated.  

“The USPSTF did see a statistically significant 7% reduction in cancer with multivitamins in their meta-analysis of four randomized trials and a borderline 6% reduction in all-cause mortality,” she noted. “Plus, multivitamins have been shown to be quite safe in several large and long-term randomized trials. I agree the evidence is not sufficient to make a blanket recommendation for everyone to take multivitamins, but the evidence is mounting that this would be a prudent approach for many older adults,” Dr. Manson said.

“Many people view multivitamins as a form of insurance, as a way to hedge their bets,” she added. “Although this is a rational approach, especially for those who have concerns about the adequacy of their diet, it’s important that this mindset not lead to complacency about following healthy lifestyle practices, including healthy eating, regular physical activity, not smoking, making sure that blood pressure and cholesterol levels are well controlled, and many other practices that critically important for health but are more challenging than simply popping a pill each day.”

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

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association has issued new guidelines for the medical treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

The guidelines, which are separated into one publication for IBS with constipation (IBS-C) and another for IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), are the first to advise clinicians in the usage of new, old, and over-the-counter drugs for IBS, according to a press release from the AGA.

“With more treatments available, physicians can tailor a personalized approach based on the symptoms a patient with IBS is experiencing,” AGA said.

Published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, the two guidelines describe a shared rationale for their creation, noting how the treatment landscape has changed since the AGA last issued IBS guidelines in 2014.

IBS-C

In the IBS-C guidelines, co–first authors Lin Chang, MD, AGAF, of the University of Los Angeles, and Shahnaz Sultan, MD, MHSc, AGAF, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, noted that IBS-C accounts for “more than a third of IBS cases,” with patients frequently reporting “feeling self-conscious, avoiding sex, difficulty concentrating, [and] not feeling able to reach one’s full potential.”

They offered nine pharmacologic recommendations, eight of which are conditional, with certainty in evidence ranging from low to high.

The only strong recommendation with a high certainty in evidence is for linaclotide.

“Across four RCTs [randomized controlled trials], linaclotide improved global assessment of IBS-C symptoms (FDA responder), abdominal pain, complete spontaneous bowel movement response, as well as adequate global response,” Dr. Chang and colleagues wrote.

Conditional recommendations with moderate certainty in evidence are provided for tenapanor, plecanatide, tegaserod, and lubiprostone. Recommendations for polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants and antispasmodics are conditional and based on low-certainty evidence, as well as a conditional recommendation against selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, also based on low-certainty evidence.

IBS-D

The IBS-D guidelines, led by co–first authors Anthony Lembo, MD, AGAF, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and Dr. Sultan, includes eight conditional recommendations with certainty in evidence ranging from very low to moderate.

Drugs recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence include eluxadoline, alosetron, and rifaximin, with the added note that patients who respond to rifaximin but have recurrence should be treated again with rifaximin. Low-certainty evidence supported recommendations for tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics. Very low–certainty evidence stands behind a recommendation for loperamide. Again, the panel made a conditional recommendation against SSRIs, also based on low-certainty evidence.
 

Shared decision-making

Both publications concluded with similar statements about the importance of shared decision-making, plus a practical mindset, in management of IBS.

“Acknowledging that multimodal treatments that include dietary and behavioral approaches in conjunction with drug therapy may provide maximal benefits and that treatment choices may be influenced by patient preferences, practitioners should engage in shared decision-making with patients when choosing the best therapy,” Dr. Lembo and colleagues wrote. “The importance of the patient-physician relationship is paramount in caring for individuals with IBS, and understanding patient preferences (for side-effect tolerability as well as cost) is valuable in choosing the right therapy.”

Both guidelines noted that some newer drugs for IBS have no generic alternative, and preauthorization may be required. Payer approval may depend on previous treatment failure with generic alternatives, they added.

The guidelines were commissioned and funded by the AGA Institute. The authors disclosed relationships with Ardelyx, Immunic, Protagonist, and others.