Guidelines

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

Adults with obesity who do not respond adequately to lifestyle interventions alone should be offered one of four suggested medications to treat obesity, with preference for semaglutide before others, according to new guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association in Gastroenterology.

Recommended first-line medications include semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), and naltrexone-buproprion ER, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Also recommended, albeit based on lower-certainty evidence, are phentermine and diethylpropion. The guidelines suggest avoiding use of orlistat. Evidence was insufficient for Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel.

The substantial increase in obesity prevalence in the United States – from 30.5% to 41.9% in just the 2 decades from 2000 to 2020 – has likely contributed to increases in various obesity-related complications, wrote Eduardo Grunvald, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. These include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and certain types of cancer, such as colorectal cancer.

“Lifestyle intervention is the foundation in the management of obesity, but it has limited effectiveness and durability for most individuals,” the authors wrote. Despite a range of highly effective pharmacological therapies developed for long-term management of obesity, these agents are not widely used in routine clinical care, and practice variability is wide. There is a “small number of providers responsible for more than 90% of the prescriptions, partly due to lack of familiarity and limited access and insurance coverage,” the authors wrote.

A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts and one patient representative, therefore, developed the guidelines by first prioritizing key clinical questions, identifying patient-centered outcomes, and conducting an evidence review of the following interventions: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel then developed management recommendations and provided clinical practice considerations regarding each of the pharmacologic interventions.

The authors focused on adults, noting that pharmacologic treatment of childhood obesity is beyond the scope of these guidelines. The evidence synthesis yielded nine recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity by gastroenterologists, primary care clinicians, endocrinologists, and other providers caring for patients with overweight or obesity. The target audience of the guidelines, however, includes patients and policymakers, the authors wrote.

“These guidelines are not intended to impose a standard of care, but rather, they provide the basis for rational, informed decisions for patients and health care professionals,” the authors wrote. “No recommendation can include all the unique individual circumstances that must be considered when making recommendations for individual patients. However, discussions around benefits and harms can be used for shared decision-making, especially for conditional recommendations where patients’ values and preferences are important to consider.”

The panel conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved obesity medications through Jan. 1, 2022. Though they primarily included studies with at least 48 weeks follow-up, they included studies with a follow-up of less than a year if one with 48 weeks’ outcomes did not exist.

The first of the nine recommendations was to add pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions in treating adults with obesity or overweight and weight-related complications who have not adequately responded to lifestyle interventions alone. This strong recommendation was based on moderate-certainty evidence.

“Antiobesity medications generally need to be used chronically, and the selection of the medication or intervention should be based on the clinical profile and needs of the patient, including, but not limited to, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, costs, and access to the therapy,” the authors wrote. Average difference in total body weight loss with the addition of medication to lifestyle interventions was 3%-10.8%, depending on the drug. Treatment discontinuation ranged from 34 to 219 per 1,000 people in treatment groups, but adverse event rates were low.

The panel’s second recommendation suggested prioritizing of semaglutide along with lifestyle interventions based on the large magnitude of its net benefit. The remaining recommendations describes the use of each of the other medications based on their respective magnitude of effect and risk for adverse events.

Important considerations

“These medications treat a biological disease, not a lifestyle problem,” Dr. Grunvald said in a prepared statement. “Obesity is a disease that often does not respond to lifestyle interventions alone in the long term. Using medications as an option to assist with weight loss can improve weight-related complications like joint pain, diabetes, fatty liver, and hypertension.”

The authors acknowledged that cost remains a concern for the use of these therapies, especially among vulnerable populations. They also noted that the medications should not be used in pregnant individuals or those with bulimia nervosa, and they should be used with caution in people with other eating disorders. Patients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin or sulfonylureas and patients taking antihypertensives may require dosage adjustments since these obesity medications may increase risk of hypoglycemia for the former and decrease blood pressure for the latter.

The panel advised against orlistat, although it added that ”patients who place a high value on the potential small weight loss benefit and low value on gastrointestinal side effects may reasonably choose treatment with orlistat.” Those patients should take a multivitamin daily that contains vitamins A, D, E, and K at least 2 hours apart from orlistat.

The lack of available evidence for Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel led the panel to suggest its use only in the context of a clinical trial.

The AGA will update these guidelines no later than 2025 and may issue rapid guidance updates until then as new evidence comes to light.

The guidelines did not receive any external funding, being fully funded by the AGA. The guideline chair and guideline methodologists had no relevant or direct conflicts of interest. All conflict of interest disclosures are maintained by the AGA office.

Adults with obesity who do not respond adequately to lifestyle interventions alone should be offered one of four suggested medications to treat obesity, with preference for semaglutide before others, according to new guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association in Gastroenterology.

Recommended first-line medications include semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), and naltrexone-buproprion ER, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Also recommended, albeit based on lower-certainty evidence, are phentermine and diethylpropion. The guidelines suggest avoiding use of orlistat. Evidence was insufficient for Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel.

The substantial increase in obesity prevalence in the United States – from 30.5% to 41.9% in just the 2 decades from 2000 to 2020 – has likely contributed to increases in various obesity-related complications, wrote Eduardo Grunvald, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. These include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and certain types of cancer, such as colorectal cancer.

“Lifestyle intervention is the foundation in the management of obesity, but it has limited effectiveness and durability for most individuals,” the authors wrote. Despite a range of highly effective pharmacological therapies developed for long-term management of obesity, these agents are not widely used in routine clinical care, and practice variability is wide. There is a “small number of providers responsible for more than 90% of the prescriptions, partly due to lack of familiarity and limited access and insurance coverage,” the authors wrote.

A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts and one patient representative, therefore, developed the guidelines by first prioritizing key clinical questions, identifying patient-centered outcomes, and conducting an evidence review of the following interventions: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel then developed management recommendations and provided clinical practice considerations regarding each of the pharmacologic interventions.

The authors focused on adults, noting that pharmacologic treatment of childhood obesity is beyond the scope of these guidelines. The evidence synthesis yielded nine recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity by gastroenterologists, primary care clinicians, endocrinologists, and other providers caring for patients with overweight or obesity. The target audience of the guidelines, however, includes patients and policymakers, the authors wrote.

“These guidelines are not intended to impose a standard of care, but rather, they provide the basis for rational, informed decisions for patients and health care professionals,” the authors wrote. “No recommendation can include all the unique individual circumstances that must be considered when making recommendations for individual patients. However, discussions around benefits and harms can be used for shared decision-making, especially for conditional recommendations where patients’ values and preferences are important to consider.”

The panel conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved obesity medications through Jan. 1, 2022. Though they primarily included studies with at least 48 weeks follow-up, they included studies with a follow-up of less than a year if one with 48 weeks’ outcomes did not exist.

The first of the nine recommendations was to add pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions in treating adults with obesity or overweight and weight-related complications who have not adequately responded to lifestyle interventions alone. This strong recommendation was based on moderate-certainty evidence.

“Antiobesity medications generally need to be used chronically, and the selection of the medication or intervention should be based on the clinical profile and needs of the patient, including, but not limited to, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, costs, and access to the therapy,” the authors wrote. Average difference in total body weight loss with the addition of medication to lifestyle interventions was 3%-10.8%, depending on the drug. Treatment discontinuation ranged from 34 to 219 per 1,000 people in treatment groups, but adverse event rates were low.

The panel’s second recommendation suggested prioritizing of semaglutide along with lifestyle interventions based on the large magnitude of its net benefit. The remaining recommendations describes the use of each of the other medications based on their respective magnitude of effect and risk for adverse events.

Important considerations

“These medications treat a biological disease, not a lifestyle problem,” Dr. Grunvald said in a prepared statement. “Obesity is a disease that often does not respond to lifestyle interventions alone in the long term. Using medications as an option to assist with weight loss can improve weight-related complications like joint pain, diabetes, fatty liver, and hypertension.”

The authors acknowledged that cost remains a concern for the use of these therapies, especially among vulnerable populations. They also noted that the medications should not be used in pregnant individuals or those with bulimia nervosa, and they should be used with caution in people with other eating disorders. Patients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin or sulfonylureas and patients taking antihypertensives may require dosage adjustments since these obesity medications may increase risk of hypoglycemia for the former and decrease blood pressure for the latter.

The panel advised against orlistat, although it added that ”patients who place a high value on the potential small weight loss benefit and low value on gastrointestinal side effects may reasonably choose treatment with orlistat.” Those patients should take a multivitamin daily that contains vitamins A, D, E, and K at least 2 hours apart from orlistat.

The lack of available evidence for Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel led the panel to suggest its use only in the context of a clinical trial.

The AGA will update these guidelines no later than 2025 and may issue rapid guidance updates until then as new evidence comes to light.

The guidelines did not receive any external funding, being fully funded by the AGA. The guideline chair and guideline methodologists had no relevant or direct conflicts of interest. All conflict of interest disclosures are maintained by the AGA office.

Adults with obesity who do not respond adequately to lifestyle interventions alone should be offered one of four suggested medications to treat obesity, with preference for semaglutide before others, according to new guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association in Gastroenterology.

Recommended first-line medications include semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), and naltrexone-buproprion ER, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Also recommended, albeit based on lower-certainty evidence, are phentermine and diethylpropion. The guidelines suggest avoiding use of orlistat. Evidence was insufficient for Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel.

The substantial increase in obesity prevalence in the United States – from 30.5% to 41.9% in just the 2 decades from 2000 to 2020 – has likely contributed to increases in various obesity-related complications, wrote Eduardo Grunvald, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. These include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and certain types of cancer, such as colorectal cancer.

“Lifestyle intervention is the foundation in the management of obesity, but it has limited effectiveness and durability for most individuals,” the authors wrote. Despite a range of highly effective pharmacological therapies developed for long-term management of obesity, these agents are not widely used in routine clinical care, and practice variability is wide. There is a “small number of providers responsible for more than 90% of the prescriptions, partly due to lack of familiarity and limited access and insurance coverage,” the authors wrote.

A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts and one patient representative, therefore, developed the guidelines by first prioritizing key clinical questions, identifying patient-centered outcomes, and conducting an evidence review of the following interventions: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel then developed management recommendations and provided clinical practice considerations regarding each of the pharmacologic interventions.

The authors focused on adults, noting that pharmacologic treatment of childhood obesity is beyond the scope of these guidelines. The evidence synthesis yielded nine recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity by gastroenterologists, primary care clinicians, endocrinologists, and other providers caring for patients with overweight or obesity. The target audience of the guidelines, however, includes patients and policymakers, the authors wrote.

“These guidelines are not intended to impose a standard of care, but rather, they provide the basis for rational, informed decisions for patients and health care professionals,” the authors wrote. “No recommendation can include all the unique individual circumstances that must be considered when making recommendations for individual patients. However, discussions around benefits and harms can be used for shared decision-making, especially for conditional recommendations where patients’ values and preferences are important to consider.”

The panel conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved obesity medications through Jan. 1, 2022. Though they primarily included studies with at least 48 weeks follow-up, they included studies with a follow-up of less than a year if one with 48 weeks’ outcomes did not exist.

The first of the nine recommendations was to add pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions in treating adults with obesity or overweight and weight-related complications who have not adequately responded to lifestyle interventions alone. This strong recommendation was based on moderate-certainty evidence.

“Antiobesity medications generally need to be used chronically, and the selection of the medication or intervention should be based on the clinical profile and needs of the patient, including, but not limited to, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, costs, and access to the therapy,” the authors wrote. Average difference in total body weight loss with the addition of medication to lifestyle interventions was 3%-10.8%, depending on the drug. Treatment discontinuation ranged from 34 to 219 per 1,000 people in treatment groups, but adverse event rates were low.

The panel’s second recommendation suggested prioritizing of semaglutide along with lifestyle interventions based on the large magnitude of its net benefit. The remaining recommendations describes the use of each of the other medications based on their respective magnitude of effect and risk for adverse events.

Important considerations

“These medications treat a biological disease, not a lifestyle problem,” Dr. Grunvald said in a prepared statement. “Obesity is a disease that often does not respond to lifestyle interventions alone in the long term. Using medications as an option to assist with weight loss can improve weight-related complications like joint pain, diabetes, fatty liver, and hypertension.”

The authors acknowledged that cost remains a concern for the use of these therapies, especially among vulnerable populations. They also noted that the medications should not be used in pregnant individuals or those with bulimia nervosa, and they should be used with caution in people with other eating disorders. Patients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin or sulfonylureas and patients taking antihypertensives may require dosage adjustments since these obesity medications may increase risk of hypoglycemia for the former and decrease blood pressure for the latter.

The panel advised against orlistat, although it added that ”patients who place a high value on the potential small weight loss benefit and low value on gastrointestinal side effects may reasonably choose treatment with orlistat.” Those patients should take a multivitamin daily that contains vitamins A, D, E, and K at least 2 hours apart from orlistat.

The lack of available evidence for Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel led the panel to suggest its use only in the context of a clinical trial.

The AGA will update these guidelines no later than 2025 and may issue rapid guidance updates until then as new evidence comes to light.

The guidelines did not receive any external funding, being fully funded by the AGA. The guideline chair and guideline methodologists had no relevant or direct conflicts of interest. All conflict of interest disclosures are maintained by the AGA office.

A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.

The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.

The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Hard-driving profession’

The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.

“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.

The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.

“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.

“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”

She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”

Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.

“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.

The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.

“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.

Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.

“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.

As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.

“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
 

A growing need

“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Courtesy Yale University

“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.

“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
 

‘Thoughtful and long overdue’

“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.

“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”

Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.

The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.

The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Hard-driving profession’

The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.

“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.

The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.

“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.

“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”

She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”

Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.

“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.

The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.

“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.

Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.

“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.

As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.

“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
 

A growing need

“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Courtesy Yale University

“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.

“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
 

‘Thoughtful and long overdue’

“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.

“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”

Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.

The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.

The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Hard-driving profession’

The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.

“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.

The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.

“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.

“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”

She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”

Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.

“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.

The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.

“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.

Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.

“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.

As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.

“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
 

A growing need

“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Courtesy Yale University

“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.

“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
 

‘Thoughtful and long overdue’

“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.

“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”

Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life should guide treatment for the roughly 8.5 million people in the United States living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement released Oct. 13.

“The person living with PAD is the authority on the impact it has on their daily life. Our treatment must be grounded in their lived experiences and go beyond the clinical measures of how well blood flows through the arteries,” Kim G. Smolderen, PhD, lead author of the statement writing group, says in a release.

“We have spent years developing and validating standardized instruments to capture people’s experiences in a reliable and sensitive way. We are now at a point where we can start integrating this information into real-world care, through pilot programs that can develop quality benchmarks for different phenotypes of patients with PAD and the types of treatments they undergo, as seen from their perspective,” adds Dr. Smolderen, co-director of the Vascular Medicine Outcomes Research (VAMOS) lab at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The statement, “Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment,” is published online in Circulation.

It comes on the heels of a 2021 AHA statement urging greater attention to PAD, which is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States despite its high prevalence.
 

Fragmented care

Dr. Smolderen said that the multidisciplinary writing group was united in one overarching goal: “How can we disrupt the fragmented care model for PAD and make PAD care more accountable, value-based, and patient-centered?”

“True disruption is needed in a clinical space where the treatment of lower-extremity disease lies in the hands of many different specialties and variability in care and outcomes is a major concern,” Dr. Smolderen said.

The statement calls for improving and individualizing PAD care by gathering feedback from their experience through treatment using systematic and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROMs for PAD include the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ).
 

Accountability tied to reimbursement

Dr. Smolderen noted that PROMs are increasingly being integrated into definitions of what it means to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care, and PROMs scores may directly impact reimbursement.

“Using a template that has been implemented in other medical conditions, we propose a shift in metrics that will tell us whether high-quality PAD care has been delivered from a patients’ perspective,” Dr. Smolderen told this news organization.

That is, “have we been able to improve the health status of that person’s life? We may have removed the blockage in the arteries, but will the patient feel that this intervention has addressed their PAD-specific health status goals?”

To facilitate accountability in quality PAD care, the writing group calls for developing, testing, and implementing PAD-specific patient-reported outcomes performance measures – or PRO-PMs.

Pilot efforts demonstrating feasibility of PRO-PMs in various practice settings are needed, as is implementation research evaluating the integration of PRO-PMs and pragmatic clinical trial evidence to demonstrate efficacy of the use of PROs in real world care settings to improve overall PAD outcomes, the writing group says.

“Following that experience and data, we believe value-based models can be proposed integrating PRO information that will affect accountability in PAD care and may ultimately affect reimbursement,” Dr. Smolderen said.

“Adoption of this new paradigm will further improve the quality of care for PAD and will put the patient front and center, as an agent in their care,” she added.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. The writing group includes a patient advocate and experts in clinical psychology, outcomes research, nursing, cardiology, vascular surgery, and vascular medicine.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Smolderen has disclosed relationships with Optum, Abbott, Cook Medical, Happify, and Tegus.

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

Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life should guide treatment for the roughly 8.5 million people in the United States living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement released Oct. 13.

“The person living with PAD is the authority on the impact it has on their daily life. Our treatment must be grounded in their lived experiences and go beyond the clinical measures of how well blood flows through the arteries,” Kim G. Smolderen, PhD, lead author of the statement writing group, says in a release.

“We have spent years developing and validating standardized instruments to capture people’s experiences in a reliable and sensitive way. We are now at a point where we can start integrating this information into real-world care, through pilot programs that can develop quality benchmarks for different phenotypes of patients with PAD and the types of treatments they undergo, as seen from their perspective,” adds Dr. Smolderen, co-director of the Vascular Medicine Outcomes Research (VAMOS) lab at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The statement, “Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment,” is published online in Circulation.

It comes on the heels of a 2021 AHA statement urging greater attention to PAD, which is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States despite its high prevalence.
 

Fragmented care

Dr. Smolderen said that the multidisciplinary writing group was united in one overarching goal: “How can we disrupt the fragmented care model for PAD and make PAD care more accountable, value-based, and patient-centered?”

“True disruption is needed in a clinical space where the treatment of lower-extremity disease lies in the hands of many different specialties and variability in care and outcomes is a major concern,” Dr. Smolderen said.

The statement calls for improving and individualizing PAD care by gathering feedback from their experience through treatment using systematic and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROMs for PAD include the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ).
 

Accountability tied to reimbursement

Dr. Smolderen noted that PROMs are increasingly being integrated into definitions of what it means to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care, and PROMs scores may directly impact reimbursement.

“Using a template that has been implemented in other medical conditions, we propose a shift in metrics that will tell us whether high-quality PAD care has been delivered from a patients’ perspective,” Dr. Smolderen told this news organization.

That is, “have we been able to improve the health status of that person’s life? We may have removed the blockage in the arteries, but will the patient feel that this intervention has addressed their PAD-specific health status goals?”

To facilitate accountability in quality PAD care, the writing group calls for developing, testing, and implementing PAD-specific patient-reported outcomes performance measures – or PRO-PMs.

Pilot efforts demonstrating feasibility of PRO-PMs in various practice settings are needed, as is implementation research evaluating the integration of PRO-PMs and pragmatic clinical trial evidence to demonstrate efficacy of the use of PROs in real world care settings to improve overall PAD outcomes, the writing group says.

“Following that experience and data, we believe value-based models can be proposed integrating PRO information that will affect accountability in PAD care and may ultimately affect reimbursement,” Dr. Smolderen said.

“Adoption of this new paradigm will further improve the quality of care for PAD and will put the patient front and center, as an agent in their care,” she added.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. The writing group includes a patient advocate and experts in clinical psychology, outcomes research, nursing, cardiology, vascular surgery, and vascular medicine.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Smolderen has disclosed relationships with Optum, Abbott, Cook Medical, Happify, and Tegus.

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

Patient-reported symptoms and quality of life should guide treatment for the roughly 8.5 million people in the United States living with peripheral artery disease (PAD), the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement released Oct. 13.

“The person living with PAD is the authority on the impact it has on their daily life. Our treatment must be grounded in their lived experiences and go beyond the clinical measures of how well blood flows through the arteries,” Kim G. Smolderen, PhD, lead author of the statement writing group, says in a release.

“We have spent years developing and validating standardized instruments to capture people’s experiences in a reliable and sensitive way. We are now at a point where we can start integrating this information into real-world care, through pilot programs that can develop quality benchmarks for different phenotypes of patients with PAD and the types of treatments they undergo, as seen from their perspective,” adds Dr. Smolderen, co-director of the Vascular Medicine Outcomes Research (VAMOS) lab at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The statement, “Advancing Peripheral Artery Disease Quality of Care and Outcomes Through Patient-Reported Health Status Assessment,” is published online in Circulation.

It comes on the heels of a 2021 AHA statement urging greater attention to PAD, which is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the United States despite its high prevalence.
 

Fragmented care

Dr. Smolderen said that the multidisciplinary writing group was united in one overarching goal: “How can we disrupt the fragmented care model for PAD and make PAD care more accountable, value-based, and patient-centered?”

“True disruption is needed in a clinical space where the treatment of lower-extremity disease lies in the hands of many different specialties and variability in care and outcomes is a major concern,” Dr. Smolderen said.

The statement calls for improving and individualizing PAD care by gathering feedback from their experience through treatment using systematic and validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROMs for PAD include the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ).
 

Accountability tied to reimbursement

Dr. Smolderen noted that PROMs are increasingly being integrated into definitions of what it means to deliver high-quality, patient-centered care, and PROMs scores may directly impact reimbursement.

“Using a template that has been implemented in other medical conditions, we propose a shift in metrics that will tell us whether high-quality PAD care has been delivered from a patients’ perspective,” Dr. Smolderen told this news organization.

That is, “have we been able to improve the health status of that person’s life? We may have removed the blockage in the arteries, but will the patient feel that this intervention has addressed their PAD-specific health status goals?”

To facilitate accountability in quality PAD care, the writing group calls for developing, testing, and implementing PAD-specific patient-reported outcomes performance measures – or PRO-PMs.

Pilot efforts demonstrating feasibility of PRO-PMs in various practice settings are needed, as is implementation research evaluating the integration of PRO-PMs and pragmatic clinical trial evidence to demonstrate efficacy of the use of PROs in real world care settings to improve overall PAD outcomes, the writing group says.

“Following that experience and data, we believe value-based models can be proposed integrating PRO information that will affect accountability in PAD care and may ultimately affect reimbursement,” Dr. Smolderen said.

“Adoption of this new paradigm will further improve the quality of care for PAD and will put the patient front and center, as an agent in their care,” she added.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health. The writing group includes a patient advocate and experts in clinical psychology, outcomes research, nursing, cardiology, vascular surgery, and vascular medicine.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Smolderen has disclosed relationships with Optum, Abbott, Cook Medical, Happify, and Tegus.

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

A new consensus statement summarizes the benefits, limitations, and challenges of using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and provides recommendations for use by people with diabetes.  

“Automated insulin delivery systems” is becoming the standard terminology – including by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to refer to systems that integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system via a control algorithm into an insulin pump in order to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery. “Hybrid AID” or “hybrid closed-loop” refers to the current status of these systems, which still require some degree of user input to control glucose levels.

The term “artificial pancreas” was used interchangeably with AID in the past, but it doesn’t take into account exocrine pancreatic function. The term “bionic pancreas” refers to a specific system in development that would ultimately include glucagon along with insulin.

The new consensus report, titled “Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations,” was published online in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.  

The document is geared toward not only diabetologists and other specialists, but also diabetes nurses and specialist dietitians. Colleagues working at regulatory agencies, health care organizations, and related media might also benefit from reading it.

It is endorsed by two professional societies – the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association – and contrasts with other statements about AID systems that are sponsored by their manufacturers, noted document co-author Mark Evans, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine, University of Cambridge, England, in a statement.

“Many clinically relevant aspects, including safety, are addressed in this report. The aim ... is to encourage ongoing improvement of this technology, its safe and effective use, and its accessibility to all who can benefit from it,” Dr. Evans said.

Lead author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, pediatric endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that the report “addresses the clinical usage of AID systems from a practical point of view rather than as ... a meta-analysis or a review of all relevant clinical studies. ... As such, the benefits and limitations of systems are discussed while also considering safety, regulatory pathways, and access to this technology.”
 

AID systems do not mean diabetes is “cured”

Separate recommendations provided at the end of the document are aimed at specific stakeholders, including health care providers, patients and their caregivers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the research community.  

The authors make clear in the introduction that, while representing “a significant movement toward optimizing glucose management for individuals with diabetes,” the use of AID systems doesn’t mean that diabetes is “cured.” Rather, “expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.”

In particular, current commercially available AID systems require user input for mealtime insulin dosing and sometimes for correction doses of high blood glucose levels, although the systems at least partially automate that.

“When integrated into care, AID systems hold promise to relieve some of the daily burdens of diabetes care,” the authors write.

The statement also details problems that may arise with the physical devices, including skin irritation from adhesives, occlusion of insulin infusion sets, early CGM sensor failure, and inadequate dosing algorithms.

“Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment (that is, nonautomated subcutaneous insulin delivery by pump or injections) in case the AID system fails. They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider if needed.”

To monitor the impact of the technology, the authors emphasize the importance of the time-in-range metric derived from CGM, with the goal of achieving 70% or greater time in target blood glucose range.

Separate sections of the document address the benefits and limitations of AID systems, education and expectations for both patients and providers, and patient and provider perspectives, including how to handle urgent questions.

Other sections cover special populations such as pregnant women and people with type 2 diabetes, considerations for patient selection for current AID systems, safety, improving access to the technology, liability, and do-it-yourself systems.
 

Recommendations for health care professionals

A table near the end of the document provides specific recommendations for health care professionals, including the following:

• Be knowledgeable about AID systems and nuances of different systems, including their distinguishing features as well as strengths and weaknesses.
• Inform patients with diabetes about AID systems, including review of currently available systems, and create realistic expectations for device use.
• Involve patients with diabetes in shared decision-making when considering use of AID systems.
• Share information with patients with diabetes, as well as their peers, about general standards set by national and international guidelines on AID systems.
• Provide an on-call number or method by which a person with diabetes can always access support from a health care provider at the practice, including weekends and nights.
• Implement, potentially, protocols on times when AID systems should not be used.
• Use an individual’s health data to improve quality of care and health outcomes.

Most members of the ADA/EASD Diabetes Technology Working Group work with industry, but industry had no input on the project. Dr. Sherr has reported conducting clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Insulet, and Medtronic, and has received in-kind support for research studies from Dexcom and Medtronic. She has also reported consulting for Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Medtronic, and Sanofi, and being an advisory board member for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Eli Lilly, Insulet, T1D Fund, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Evans has reported conducting clinical trials or research collaborations for, serving on advisory boards for, or receiving speakers fees or travel support from Medtronic, Roche, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and AstraZeneca. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for Dr. Evans from the National Health Service.

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

A new consensus statement summarizes the benefits, limitations, and challenges of using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and provides recommendations for use by people with diabetes.  

“Automated insulin delivery systems” is becoming the standard terminology – including by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to refer to systems that integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system via a control algorithm into an insulin pump in order to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery. “Hybrid AID” or “hybrid closed-loop” refers to the current status of these systems, which still require some degree of user input to control glucose levels.

The term “artificial pancreas” was used interchangeably with AID in the past, but it doesn’t take into account exocrine pancreatic function. The term “bionic pancreas” refers to a specific system in development that would ultimately include glucagon along with insulin.

The new consensus report, titled “Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations,” was published online in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.  

The document is geared toward not only diabetologists and other specialists, but also diabetes nurses and specialist dietitians. Colleagues working at regulatory agencies, health care organizations, and related media might also benefit from reading it.

It is endorsed by two professional societies – the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association – and contrasts with other statements about AID systems that are sponsored by their manufacturers, noted document co-author Mark Evans, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine, University of Cambridge, England, in a statement.

“Many clinically relevant aspects, including safety, are addressed in this report. The aim ... is to encourage ongoing improvement of this technology, its safe and effective use, and its accessibility to all who can benefit from it,” Dr. Evans said.

Lead author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, pediatric endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that the report “addresses the clinical usage of AID systems from a practical point of view rather than as ... a meta-analysis or a review of all relevant clinical studies. ... As such, the benefits and limitations of systems are discussed while also considering safety, regulatory pathways, and access to this technology.”
 

AID systems do not mean diabetes is “cured”

Separate recommendations provided at the end of the document are aimed at specific stakeholders, including health care providers, patients and their caregivers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the research community.  

The authors make clear in the introduction that, while representing “a significant movement toward optimizing glucose management for individuals with diabetes,” the use of AID systems doesn’t mean that diabetes is “cured.” Rather, “expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.”

In particular, current commercially available AID systems require user input for mealtime insulin dosing and sometimes for correction doses of high blood glucose levels, although the systems at least partially automate that.

“When integrated into care, AID systems hold promise to relieve some of the daily burdens of diabetes care,” the authors write.

The statement also details problems that may arise with the physical devices, including skin irritation from adhesives, occlusion of insulin infusion sets, early CGM sensor failure, and inadequate dosing algorithms.

“Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment (that is, nonautomated subcutaneous insulin delivery by pump or injections) in case the AID system fails. They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider if needed.”

To monitor the impact of the technology, the authors emphasize the importance of the time-in-range metric derived from CGM, with the goal of achieving 70% or greater time in target blood glucose range.

Separate sections of the document address the benefits and limitations of AID systems, education and expectations for both patients and providers, and patient and provider perspectives, including how to handle urgent questions.

Other sections cover special populations such as pregnant women and people with type 2 diabetes, considerations for patient selection for current AID systems, safety, improving access to the technology, liability, and do-it-yourself systems.
 

Recommendations for health care professionals

A table near the end of the document provides specific recommendations for health care professionals, including the following:

• Be knowledgeable about AID systems and nuances of different systems, including their distinguishing features as well as strengths and weaknesses.
• Inform patients with diabetes about AID systems, including review of currently available systems, and create realistic expectations for device use.
• Involve patients with diabetes in shared decision-making when considering use of AID systems.
• Share information with patients with diabetes, as well as their peers, about general standards set by national and international guidelines on AID systems.
• Provide an on-call number or method by which a person with diabetes can always access support from a health care provider at the practice, including weekends and nights.
• Implement, potentially, protocols on times when AID systems should not be used.
• Use an individual’s health data to improve quality of care and health outcomes.

Most members of the ADA/EASD Diabetes Technology Working Group work with industry, but industry had no input on the project. Dr. Sherr has reported conducting clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Insulet, and Medtronic, and has received in-kind support for research studies from Dexcom and Medtronic. She has also reported consulting for Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Medtronic, and Sanofi, and being an advisory board member for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Eli Lilly, Insulet, T1D Fund, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Evans has reported conducting clinical trials or research collaborations for, serving on advisory boards for, or receiving speakers fees or travel support from Medtronic, Roche, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and AstraZeneca. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for Dr. Evans from the National Health Service.

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

A new consensus statement summarizes the benefits, limitations, and challenges of using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and provides recommendations for use by people with diabetes.  

“Automated insulin delivery systems” is becoming the standard terminology – including by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to refer to systems that integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system via a control algorithm into an insulin pump in order to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery. “Hybrid AID” or “hybrid closed-loop” refers to the current status of these systems, which still require some degree of user input to control glucose levels.

The term “artificial pancreas” was used interchangeably with AID in the past, but it doesn’t take into account exocrine pancreatic function. The term “bionic pancreas” refers to a specific system in development that would ultimately include glucagon along with insulin.

The new consensus report, titled “Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations,” was published online in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.  

The document is geared toward not only diabetologists and other specialists, but also diabetes nurses and specialist dietitians. Colleagues working at regulatory agencies, health care organizations, and related media might also benefit from reading it.

It is endorsed by two professional societies – the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association – and contrasts with other statements about AID systems that are sponsored by their manufacturers, noted document co-author Mark Evans, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine, University of Cambridge, England, in a statement.

“Many clinically relevant aspects, including safety, are addressed in this report. The aim ... is to encourage ongoing improvement of this technology, its safe and effective use, and its accessibility to all who can benefit from it,” Dr. Evans said.

Lead author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, pediatric endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that the report “addresses the clinical usage of AID systems from a practical point of view rather than as ... a meta-analysis or a review of all relevant clinical studies. ... As such, the benefits and limitations of systems are discussed while also considering safety, regulatory pathways, and access to this technology.”
 

AID systems do not mean diabetes is “cured”

Separate recommendations provided at the end of the document are aimed at specific stakeholders, including health care providers, patients and their caregivers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the research community.  

The authors make clear in the introduction that, while representing “a significant movement toward optimizing glucose management for individuals with diabetes,” the use of AID systems doesn’t mean that diabetes is “cured.” Rather, “expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.”

In particular, current commercially available AID systems require user input for mealtime insulin dosing and sometimes for correction doses of high blood glucose levels, although the systems at least partially automate that.

“When integrated into care, AID systems hold promise to relieve some of the daily burdens of diabetes care,” the authors write.

The statement also details problems that may arise with the physical devices, including skin irritation from adhesives, occlusion of insulin infusion sets, early CGM sensor failure, and inadequate dosing algorithms.

“Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment (that is, nonautomated subcutaneous insulin delivery by pump or injections) in case the AID system fails. They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider if needed.”

To monitor the impact of the technology, the authors emphasize the importance of the time-in-range metric derived from CGM, with the goal of achieving 70% or greater time in target blood glucose range.

Separate sections of the document address the benefits and limitations of AID systems, education and expectations for both patients and providers, and patient and provider perspectives, including how to handle urgent questions.

Other sections cover special populations such as pregnant women and people with type 2 diabetes, considerations for patient selection for current AID systems, safety, improving access to the technology, liability, and do-it-yourself systems.
 

Recommendations for health care professionals

A table near the end of the document provides specific recommendations for health care professionals, including the following:

• Be knowledgeable about AID systems and nuances of different systems, including their distinguishing features as well as strengths and weaknesses.
• Inform patients with diabetes about AID systems, including review of currently available systems, and create realistic expectations for device use.
• Involve patients with diabetes in shared decision-making when considering use of AID systems.
• Share information with patients with diabetes, as well as their peers, about general standards set by national and international guidelines on AID systems.
• Provide an on-call number or method by which a person with diabetes can always access support from a health care provider at the practice, including weekends and nights.
• Implement, potentially, protocols on times when AID systems should not be used.
• Use an individual’s health data to improve quality of care and health outcomes.

Most members of the ADA/EASD Diabetes Technology Working Group work with industry, but industry had no input on the project. Dr. Sherr has reported conducting clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Insulet, and Medtronic, and has received in-kind support for research studies from Dexcom and Medtronic. She has also reported consulting for Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Medtronic, and Sanofi, and being an advisory board member for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Eli Lilly, Insulet, T1D Fund, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Evans has reported conducting clinical trials or research collaborations for, serving on advisory boards for, or receiving speakers fees or travel support from Medtronic, Roche, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and AstraZeneca. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for Dr. Evans from the National Health Service.

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

Physician authors of clinical practice guidelines for psoriatic arthritis in the United States and Japan received payments from pharmaceutical companies totaling over $7 million during 2016-2018, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).

In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”

Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:

• Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
• Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
• Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
• Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.

Financial conflicts of interest

The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”

The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.

A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,

The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.

Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.

The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).

“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
 

Nonfinancial conflicts of interest

Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.

The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.

The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.

Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.

This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.

Physician authors of clinical practice guidelines for psoriatic arthritis in the United States and Japan received payments from pharmaceutical companies totaling over $7 million during 2016-2018, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).

In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”

Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:

• Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
• Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
• Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
• Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.

Financial conflicts of interest

The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”

The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.

A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,

The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.

Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.

The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).

“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
 

Nonfinancial conflicts of interest

Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.

The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.

The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.

Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.

This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.

Physician authors of clinical practice guidelines for psoriatic arthritis in the United States and Japan received payments from pharmaceutical companies totaling over $7 million during 2016-2018, according to a retrospective analysis of all authors on the most recent guidelines issued by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA).

In addition to finding that the majority of the authors of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) issued by the JDA and ACR received substantial personal payments from pharmaceutical companies before and during CPG development, researchers led by Hanano Mamada and Anju Murayama of the Medical Governance Research Institute, Tokyo, wrote in Arthritis Care & Research that “several CPG authors self-cited their articles without the disclosure of NFCOI [nonfinancial conflicts of interest], and most of the recommendations were based on low or very low quality of evidence. Although the COI policies used by JDA and ACR are clearly inadequate, no significant revisions have been made for the last 3 years.”

Based on their findings, which were made using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018, the researchers suggested that the medical societies should:

• Adopt global standard COI policies from organizations such as the National Academy of Medicine and Guidelines International Network, including a 3-year lookback period for COI declaration.
• Consider a comprehensive definition and rigorous management with full disclosure of NFCOI.
• Publish a list of authors making each recommendation to grasp the implications of COI in clinical practice guidelines.
• Mention the detailed date of the COI disclosure, which should be close to the publication date as much as possible.

Financial conflicts of interest

The researchers used payment data published between 2016 and 2018 for all 83 companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, focusing on personal payments (for lecturing, writing, and consultancy) and excluding research payments, “since in Japan, the name, institution, and position of the author or researcher who received the research payment is not disclosed, which makes assessing research payments difficult.” To evaluate authors’ FCOI in the ACR’s CPG, the researchers analyzed the U.S. Open Payments Database “for all categories of general payments such as speaking, consulting, meals, and travel expenses 3 years from before the guideline’s first online publication on November 30, 2018.”

The 2018 ACR/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis had 36 authors and the JDA’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis 2019 had 23. Overall, 61% of JDA authors and half of ACR authors voluntarily declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies; 25 of the ACR authors were U.S. physicians and could be included in the Open Payments Database search.

A total of 21 (91.3%) JDA authors and 21 (84.0%) ACR authors received at least one payment, with the combined total of $3,335,413 and $4,081,629 payments, respectively, over the 3 years. The average and median personal payments were $145,018 and $123,876 for JDA authors and $162,825 and $58,826 for ACR authors. When the payments to ACR authors were limited to lecturing, writing, and consulting fees that are required under the ACR’s COI policy, the mean was $130,102 and median was $39,375. The corresponding payments for JDA authors were $123,876 and $8,170, respectively,

The researchers found undisclosed payments for more than three-quarters of physician authors of the Japanese guideline, and nearly half of the doctors authoring the American guideline had undisclosed payments. These added up to $474,000 for the JDA, which amounted to 38% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the JDA based on its COI policy for clinical practice guidelines, and $218,000 for the ACR, amounting to 18% of the total for personal payments that must be reported to the society based on its COI policy.

Of the 11 ACR authors who were not eligible for the U.S. Open Payments Database search, 5 declared FCOI with pharmaceutical companies in the guideline, meaning that 26 (72%) of the 36 authors had FCOI with pharmaceutical companies.

The ACR only required authors to declare FCOI covering 1 year before and during guideline development, and although the JDA required authors to declare their FCOI for the past 3 years of guideline development, the study authors noted that the JDA guideline disclosed them for only 2 years (between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2018).

“It is true that influential doctors such as clinical practice guideline authors tend to receive various types of payments from pharmaceutical companies and that it is difficult to conduct research without funding from pharmaceutical companies. However, our current research mainly focuses on personal payments from pharmaceutical companies such as lecture fees and consulting fees. These payments are recognized as pocket money and are not used for research. Thus, it is questionable that the observed relationships are something evitable,” the researchers wrote.
 

Nonfinancial conflicts of interest

Many authors of the ACR’s CPG and the JDA’s CPG also had NFCOI, defined objectively in this study as self-citation rate. NFCOI have been more broadly defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as “conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs”; the ICMJE recommends reporting NFCOI on its COI form.

The JDA guideline included self-citations by 78% of its authors, compared with 32% of the ACR guideline authors, but this weighed differently among the two guidelines in that only 12 of the 354 (3.4%) citations in the JDA guideline were self-cited, compared with 46 of 137 (34%) citations in the ACR guideline.

The researchers noted that while the self-citation rates between JDA and ACR authors “differed remarkably,” the impact of ACR authors on CPG recommendations was much more direct. Three-quarters of JDA authors’ self-cited articles were about observational studies, whereas 52% of the ACR authors’ self-cited articles were clinical trials, most of which were randomized, controlled studies, and these NFCOI were not disclosed in the guideline.

Half of the strong recommendations in the JDA guideline were based on low or very low quality of evidence, whereas the ACR guideline had no strong recommendations based on low or very low quality of evidence.

This study was supported by the nonprofit Medical Governance Research Institute, which receives donations from Ain Pharmacies Inc., other organizations, and private individuals. The study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent nonprofit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. Three authors reported receiving personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies for work outside of the scope of this study.

The proper management of subepithelial lesions (SELs) depends on the size, histopathology, malignant potential, and presence of symptoms, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“SELs are found in 1 in every 300 endoscopies, and two-thirds of these lesions are located in the stomach,” explained Kaveh Sharzehi, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. “They represent a heterogeneous group of lesions including nonneoplastic lesions such as ectopic pancreatic tissue and neoplastic lesions. The neoplastic SELs can vary from lesions with no malignant potential such as lipomas to those with malignant potential such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The majority of SELs are small and found incidentally.”

The authors developed 10 clinical practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of subepithelial lesions based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, standard mucosal biopsies often don’t reach deep enough to obtain a pathologic diagnosis for SELs because the lesions have normal overlying mucosa. Forceps bite-on-bite/deep-well biopsies or tunnel biopsies may help to establish a pathologic diagnosis.

Used as an adjunct to standard endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become the primary method for determining diagnostic and prognostic characteristics of SELs – such as the layer of origin, echogenicity, and presence of blood vessels within the lesion. It can also help with tissue acquisition.

For SELs arising from the submucosa, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy have evolved as widely used methods for obtaining tissue. For SELs arising from muscularis propria, fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy should be used to determine whether the lesion is a GIST or leiomyoma. Using structural assessment and staining will allow for the differentiation of mesenchymal tumors and assessment of their malignant potential.

To remove SELs, multiple endoscopic resection techniques may be appropriate, depending on the layer of origin, size, and location, with the goal of complete, en bloc resection with no disruption to the wall or capsule of the lesion. These techniques should be limited to endoscopists skilled in advanced tissue resection.

SELs without malignant potential, such as lipoma or pancreatic rest, don’t need further evaluation or surveillance.

SELs that are ulcerated, bleeding, or causing symptoms should be considered for resection.

Other lesions are managed with resection or surveillance based on pathology. For example, leiomyomas, which are benign and most often found in the esophagus, generally don’t require surveillance or resection. On the other hand, all GISTs have some malignant potential, and management varies by size, location, and presence of symptoms. GISTs larger than 2 cm, should be considered for resection. Some GISTs between 2 cm and 4 cm without high-risk features can be removed by using advanced endoscopic resection techniques.

The determination for resection in all cases should include a multidisciplinary approach, with confirmation of a low mitotic index and lack of metastatic disease on cross-sectional imaging.

“The ultimate goal of endoscopic resection is to have a complete resection,” the authors wrote. “Determining the layer of involvement by EUS is critical in planning resection techniques.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. One author serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Fujifilm, Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, and Olympus. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The proper management of subepithelial lesions (SELs) depends on the size, histopathology, malignant potential, and presence of symptoms, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“SELs are found in 1 in every 300 endoscopies, and two-thirds of these lesions are located in the stomach,” explained Kaveh Sharzehi, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. “They represent a heterogeneous group of lesions including nonneoplastic lesions such as ectopic pancreatic tissue and neoplastic lesions. The neoplastic SELs can vary from lesions with no malignant potential such as lipomas to those with malignant potential such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The majority of SELs are small and found incidentally.”

The authors developed 10 clinical practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of subepithelial lesions based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, standard mucosal biopsies often don’t reach deep enough to obtain a pathologic diagnosis for SELs because the lesions have normal overlying mucosa. Forceps bite-on-bite/deep-well biopsies or tunnel biopsies may help to establish a pathologic diagnosis.

Used as an adjunct to standard endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become the primary method for determining diagnostic and prognostic characteristics of SELs – such as the layer of origin, echogenicity, and presence of blood vessels within the lesion. It can also help with tissue acquisition.

For SELs arising from the submucosa, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy have evolved as widely used methods for obtaining tissue. For SELs arising from muscularis propria, fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy should be used to determine whether the lesion is a GIST or leiomyoma. Using structural assessment and staining will allow for the differentiation of mesenchymal tumors and assessment of their malignant potential.

To remove SELs, multiple endoscopic resection techniques may be appropriate, depending on the layer of origin, size, and location, with the goal of complete, en bloc resection with no disruption to the wall or capsule of the lesion. These techniques should be limited to endoscopists skilled in advanced tissue resection.

SELs without malignant potential, such as lipoma or pancreatic rest, don’t need further evaluation or surveillance.

SELs that are ulcerated, bleeding, or causing symptoms should be considered for resection.

Other lesions are managed with resection or surveillance based on pathology. For example, leiomyomas, which are benign and most often found in the esophagus, generally don’t require surveillance or resection. On the other hand, all GISTs have some malignant potential, and management varies by size, location, and presence of symptoms. GISTs larger than 2 cm, should be considered for resection. Some GISTs between 2 cm and 4 cm without high-risk features can be removed by using advanced endoscopic resection techniques.

The determination for resection in all cases should include a multidisciplinary approach, with confirmation of a low mitotic index and lack of metastatic disease on cross-sectional imaging.

“The ultimate goal of endoscopic resection is to have a complete resection,” the authors wrote. “Determining the layer of involvement by EUS is critical in planning resection techniques.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. One author serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Fujifilm, Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, and Olympus. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The proper management of subepithelial lesions (SELs) depends on the size, histopathology, malignant potential, and presence of symptoms, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“SELs are found in 1 in every 300 endoscopies, and two-thirds of these lesions are located in the stomach,” explained Kaveh Sharzehi, MD, an associate professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues. “They represent a heterogeneous group of lesions including nonneoplastic lesions such as ectopic pancreatic tissue and neoplastic lesions. The neoplastic SELs can vary from lesions with no malignant potential such as lipomas to those with malignant potential such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The majority of SELs are small and found incidentally.”

The authors developed 10 clinical practice advice statements on the diagnosis and management of subepithelial lesions based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, standard mucosal biopsies often don’t reach deep enough to obtain a pathologic diagnosis for SELs because the lesions have normal overlying mucosa. Forceps bite-on-bite/deep-well biopsies or tunnel biopsies may help to establish a pathologic diagnosis.

Used as an adjunct to standard endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become the primary method for determining diagnostic and prognostic characteristics of SELs – such as the layer of origin, echogenicity, and presence of blood vessels within the lesion. It can also help with tissue acquisition.

For SELs arising from the submucosa, EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy have evolved as widely used methods for obtaining tissue. For SELs arising from muscularis propria, fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy should be used to determine whether the lesion is a GIST or leiomyoma. Using structural assessment and staining will allow for the differentiation of mesenchymal tumors and assessment of their malignant potential.

To remove SELs, multiple endoscopic resection techniques may be appropriate, depending on the layer of origin, size, and location, with the goal of complete, en bloc resection with no disruption to the wall or capsule of the lesion. These techniques should be limited to endoscopists skilled in advanced tissue resection.

SELs without malignant potential, such as lipoma or pancreatic rest, don’t need further evaluation or surveillance.

SELs that are ulcerated, bleeding, or causing symptoms should be considered for resection.

Other lesions are managed with resection or surveillance based on pathology. For example, leiomyomas, which are benign and most often found in the esophagus, generally don’t require surveillance or resection. On the other hand, all GISTs have some malignant potential, and management varies by size, location, and presence of symptoms. GISTs larger than 2 cm, should be considered for resection. Some GISTs between 2 cm and 4 cm without high-risk features can be removed by using advanced endoscopic resection techniques.

The determination for resection in all cases should include a multidisciplinary approach, with confirmation of a low mitotic index and lack of metastatic disease on cross-sectional imaging.

“The ultimate goal of endoscopic resection is to have a complete resection,” the authors wrote. “Determining the layer of involvement by EUS is critical in planning resection techniques.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this report. One author serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Fujifilm, Intuitive Surgical, Medtronic, and Olympus. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

The diagnosis and management of refractory celiac disease remains challenging, but ongoing studies can provide the proper diagnostic criteria and identify the optimal management strategies, according to a new American Gastroenterological Association expert review published in Gastroenterology.

Celiac disease is present in about 1% of the U.S. population and can cause various symptoms, wrote Peter H. R. Green, MD, director of the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues. Adhering to a strict gluten-free diet can improve symptoms, normalize serum antibody levels, and reverse small bowel villous atrophy. However, persistent or recurrent symptoms and elevated celiac antibodies can persist in some patients after a year of trying a gluten-free diet, a condition called nonresponsive celiac disease. In some patients, this raises concern for refractory celiac disease, or RCD.

“RCD is believed to occur in only approximately 1% of patients with celiac disease, although this may be an overestimate, as data are obtained from referral centers,” the authors wrote.

RCD can be classified into two subtypes with different diagnostic criteria, prognoses, and therapy responses. The first, called RCD1, is characterized by villous atrophy but has intraepithelial lymphocytes similar to conventional celiac disease. The other, called RCD2, is characterized by aberrant clonal T-cell expansion in the intestinal tract and other organs, has a poorer prognosis than RCD1, and has a risk of developing ulcerative jejunoileitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma.

The experts developed 10 clinical practice advice statements based on a review of the published literature and expert opinion.

First, in patients who have persistent or recurring symptoms, an initial celiac disease diagnosis should be confirmed through review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings. Celiac disease can overlap with other gastrointestinal conditions, and some pathologic findings aren’t specific to celiac disease. Results of serologic testing with tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and IgG, and endomysial antibodies should be reviewed or obtained if not previously performed.

Next, in those with confirmed but nonresponsive celiac disease, ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and potentially detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine samples. The authors noted that persistent gluten ingestion, whether intentional or inadvertent, accounts for 40%-50% of patients with nonresponsive celiac disease. In these cases, esophagogastroduodenoscopy and small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for persistent villous atrophy, which can also be caused by common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy. Patients with villous atrophy due to other causes won’t respond to a gluten-free diet.

After excluding gluten, clinicians should perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, lactose or fructose intolerance, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, and small intestinal bacterial growth. Irritable bowel syndrome, for instance, may contribute to persistent symptoms and respond to fermentable oligo-, di-, and monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAP) restriction. RCD should be strongly considered in patients with persistent symptoms or signs of malabsorption after the exclusion of the other causes.

To distinguish between the two subtypes of RCD and exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies. RCD1 has a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population, and RCD2 has an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consulting with a hematopathologist may be necessary to interpret these studies.

After RCD2 is diagnosed, complications such as enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis should be excluded through small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance enterography. In general, the extent and severity of villous atrophy is greater in patients with RCD2, compared with RCD1.

In patients diagnosed with RCD, clinicians should complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor. Then, try to correct deficiencies with oral supplements. Malnourished patients may need enteral support, and those with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption may need parenteral support.

So far, RCD management suggestions are based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion, with minimal prospective data and no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies. The goals should be to improve symptoms and duodenal mucosal abnormalities, manage malnutrition, and prevent lymphoma. Glucocorticoids are considered first-line therapy, typically open-capsule budesonide given as 3 mg three times daily. Prednisone serves as an alternative with proven efficacy but a higher risk for adverse effects.

The optimal choice for second-line therapy is unknown, but the addition of an immunosuppressant agent to steroids appears to be effective in RCD1, including azathioprine, mercaptopurine, and tioguanine. The best treatment for RCD2 is unknown, though clinical response has been reported with steroids, and cladribine has been well tolerated in some patients.

Patients with RCD who don’t respond to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials. Frequent medical visits are advised until the disease is well controlled, with regular follow-up after that. 

Ultimately, “patients with RCD benefit from evaluation and regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy,” the authors wrote. “Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.”

The authors reported no grant support or funding sources for this study. One author has received research report from Freenome, and another is on the celiac disease advisory board for Takeda. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.