Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Even very light alcohol intake is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with not drinking at all, and the risk increases exponentially as alcohol intake rises, even at moderate levels, a new study shows.

“Our findings suggest that the observed benefit in individuals with light to moderate alcohol intake, which is consistently shown in epidemiological studies, is likely due to other positive lifestyle factors that are common in these individuals who drink lightly,” senior author Krishna Aragam, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization.

“Our results also showed that while all levels of alcohol were linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, the association was not linear. Rather, light alcohol intake was associated with rather modest risk increases, but there were exponential increases in cardiovascular risk with increasing amounts of alcohol consumption,” he said.

As the risk gradient appeared to increase quite sharply even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, Dr. Aragam suggested that what might be regarded as safe levels of drinking may trend downward in the future.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

They also conducted genetic analyses to examine the effect of alcohol and cardiovascular disease.   

Dr. Aragam explained that previous work has shown good evidence, in individuals who choose to drink, that several relevant genetic variants predict levels of alcohol consumption quite accurately.

“Mendelian randomization using these gene variants allows for stronger inferences about potential causality than do observational studies, as they are less affected by confounding factors,” he noted.

Newer techniques in Mendelian randomization in which data on several gene variants linked to alcohol consumption are combined into a score allow for a greater understanding of the risk linked to different amount of alcohol intake, he added.

In these Mendelian randomization analyses, a 1-standard deviation increase in genetically predicted alcohol consumption was associated with 1.3-fold higher risk of hypertension (P < .001) and 1.4-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease (P = .006).

Further analyses suggested nonlinear associations between alcohol consumption and both hypertension and coronary artery disease; light alcohol intake was associated with minimal increases in cardiovascular risk, whereas heavier consumption was associated with exponential increases in risk of both clinical and subclinical cardiovascular disease.

These results were replicated in a second database of 30,716 individuals from the Mass General Brigham Biobank.

“The findings of this study suggest that the observed cardioprotective effects of light to moderate alcohol intake may be largely mediated by confounding lifestyle factors,” the researchers conclude. “Genetic analyses suggest causal associations between alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease but with unequal and exponential increases in risk at greater levels of intake, which should be accounted for in health recommendations around the habitual consumption of alcohol.”

What is an acceptable level? 

“Specifically, our results suggest that consuming as many as 7 drinks per week is associated with relatively modest increases in cardiovascular risk,” they write.

But they point out that there are unequal increases in cardiovascular risk when progressing from 0 to 7 versus 7 to 14 drinks per week in both men and women.

“Although risk thresholds are inherently somewhat subjective, these findings again bring into question whether an average consumption of 2 drinks per day (14 drinks per week) should be designated a low-risk behavior,” they say.

“Furthermore, as several-fold increases in risk were observed for those consuming 21 or more drinks per week, our results emphasize the importance of aggressive efforts to reduce alcohol intake among heavy drinkers,” they add.

Dr. Aragam elaborated: “Our data suggest that reducing alcohol intake will reduce cardiovascular risk in all individuals, but the extent of the relative risk reduction is quite different depending on the current levels of consumption. For the same absolute reduction in alcohol intake, the gains in terms of reduction in cardiovascular risk will be more pronounced in those who drink heavily and will be more modest in those who drink at a light level.”

The results also suggest that while all levels of alcohol intake increase cardiovascular risk, there are low levels of alcohol consumption that do not carry major elevations in risk, but these are probably lower than those currently recommended, Dr. Aragam pointed out. 

“This doesn’t mean that everyone has to give up drinking alcohol completely, just that you shouldn’t consume with the goal of improving cardiovascular health. In fact, our analyses suggest that in an otherwise healthy person, up to 1 drink per day may not pose outsized risks,” he said. “And, even in a less healthy person who might be smoking, eating poorly, and drinking up to 1 drink per day, it may be a higher priority to focus on smoking cessation and diet than cutting back further on alcohol.”

“Beyond that amount, though, the jury is still out. Our models suggested marked increases in risk even between 1 and 2 drinks per day, and of course even greater risk increases beyond that. So, it’s probably worth revisiting what one might consider a ‘safe’ amount within the moderate drinking categories. The conservative move for now might be to advise a limit of 1 drink per day,” he said.   

Dr. Aragam is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association. He reports receiving speaking fees from the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist was associated with a 37% increase in the relative risk of gallbladder or biliary disease, compared with controls – especially when used at high doses, for a longer time, and for weight loss rather than type 2 diabetes – a new meta-analysis has found.

The results “indicate that physicians and patients should be concerned about the risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases with using GLP-1 agonists,” study authors Liyun He and colleagues from Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, summarize.

However, “the overall absolute risk increase for gallbladder and biliary disease with use of GLP-1 receptor agonists was small (an additional 27 cases per 10,000 persons treated per year),” they note.

“This absolute risk increase should be weighed against the benefits of treatment with GLP-1 agonists,” which include glucose control, decreased cardiovascular risk, and weight loss, they add.

The findings are from a meta-analysis of 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists published online March 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Shanzay Haider, MD, and Kasia J. Lipska, MD, also characterize the absolute risk of these complications as “modest.”

“The highest risk for these complications,” they add, “occurred among individuals in the weight loss, compared with the type 2 diabetes studies (119 vs. 13 more events per 10,000 persons per year).”

“Ultimately, the decision to start, continue, or change the dose of a GLP-1 agonist should be reached through a collaborative and individualized discussion between a clinician and a patient,” Dr. Haider and Dr. Lipska, from Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., summarize.

The study authors also note that few of the trials reported biliary-related events.

“Future trials [of drugs in this class] should prespecify gallbladder and biliary diseases as potential adverse events, and fully test for and report on these outcomes,” they urge.   

Certain drugs in this class are now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for weight loss at higher doses than for type 2 diabetes – subcutaneous liraglutide (3.0 mg) and subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) – “suggesting that GLP-1 agonist drugs will increasingly be used at high doses for weight control,” the authors note.

Controversial link

The association between GLP-1 agonists and gallbladder or biliary disease is controversial, the authors write.

Several randomized controlled trials reported higher rates of gallbladder disorders in patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus placebo, but it is not clear if this is a class effect.

Liraglutide “has drawn the most attention” about this risk, and a post-hoc analysis of the LEADER trial found a significantly increased risk of acute biliary obstruction with liraglutide versus placebo.

To investigate this, the researchers identified 76 randomized controlled trials of GLP-1 agonists in 103,371 patients that had data for the following safety outcomes: cholelithiasis (gallstones, 61 trials), cholecystitis (inflamed gallbladder, 53 trials), biliary disease (21 trials), cholecystectomy (surgical removal of the gallbladder, seven trials), and biliary cancer (12 trials).

Sixty trials were for type 2 diabetes, 13 were for weight loss, and three were for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, polycystic ovary syndrome, and schizophrenia. They were classed as short or long (≤ 26 weeks or > 26 weeks).

The GLP-1 agonists were liraglutide (21 trials), subcutaneous semaglutide (14), dulaglutide (11), exenatide (9), albiglutide (8), oral semaglutide (8), and lixisenatide (6). 

Participants were a mean age of 58 years and 41% were women. They had a mean BMI of 31.6 kg/m² and 36.9 kg/m² in trials of GLP-1 agonists for type 2 diabetes and weight loss, respectively.  

Patients who received a GLP-1 agonist versus controls had significantly increased rates of cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; P = .001), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; P < .001), biliary disease (RR, 1.55; P = .02), and cholecystectomy (RR, 1.70; P < .001) but a nonsignificant increased rate of biliary cancer (RR, 1.43; P = .22).

Use of GLP-1 agonists was associated with a greater increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (RR, 2.29) than in trials for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (RR, 1.27; P < .001 for interaction).

Use of these drugs was also associated with higher risks of these complications at higher doses and when given for a longer duration.     

Limitations of the meta-analysis include that the individual studies were not designed to evaluate the risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases associated with GLP-1 agonists.

Also, biliary-related events may have been under-reported, because this was not a predefined safety outcome in most of the trials. The meta-analysis lacked patient-level data, and it may have been underpowered for subgroup analyses.       

The work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation, the Nonprofit Central Research Institute Fund of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, and the Training Program for Excellent Talents in Dongcheng District. The researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

Isotretinoin is one of the most highly regulated dermatologic medications on the market. The main reason for regulation through the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–managed iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) is to minimize the drug’s teratogenic potential, as isotretinoin can cause profound birth defects. The program originally categorized patients into 1 of 3 categories: (1) females of reproductive potential, (2) females not of reproductive potential, and (3) males. Unless the patient commits to abstinence, the program required female patients of childbearing potential to be on 2 forms of birth control and undergo regular pregnancy testing before obtaining refills. Over the last few years, the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) has been advocating for changes to the iPLEDGE system. Proposed changes have included decreasing attestation frequency for patients who cannot get pregnant, increasing contraception counseling and options, and changing enrollment guidelines to encompass all gender and sexual minorities. As of December 13, 2021, the iPLEDGE system changed enrollment categories to reflect the AADA’s wishes and rolled out gender-neutral categories for enrollment in iPLEDGE. This change will simplify and enhance patients’ experience when starting isotretinoin.

Developing Inclusive iPLEDGE Categories

In recent years, dermatologists and patients have viewed these strict gender-based categories as limiting and problematic, especially for their transgender patients and female patients of childbearing potential who exclusively engage in intercourse with cisgender females. The United States has more than 10 million LGBTQIA+ citizens and an estimated 1.4 million adults who identify as transgender individuals, rendering the previously established gender-binary iPLEDGE categories outdated.^1,2

As a result, over the last few years, dermatologists, LGBTQIA+ allies, and patients have urged the FDA to create a gender-neutral registration process for iPLEDGE. With support from the AADA, the new modifications were approved for implementation and include 2 risk categories: (1) people who can get pregnant and (2) people who cannot get pregnant.³

As exciting as these changes are for the future of dermatologic practice, the actual transition to the new iPLEDGE system was described as a “failure, chaotic, and a disaster” due to additional changes made at the same time.⁴ The iPLEDGE system was switched to a new website administered by a different vendor and required providers to confirm each patient online by December 13, 2021. In addition, the new system required pharmacists to obtain risk management authorization via the iPLEDGE REMS website or by calling the iPLEDGE REMS center before dispensing isotretinoin. This overhaul did not work as planned, as the new website was constantly down and it was nearly impossible to reach a contact over the telephone. The complications resulted in major disruptions and delayed prescriptions for thousands of patients nationwide as well as a great disruption in workflow for physicians and pharmacists. The AADA subsequently met with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for these issues.

On January 14, 2022, the FDA posted updates regarding access to the iPLEDGE system. They have worked with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group to create workable solutions for patients and physicians while transferring the patients’ information to the new database. Their solution includes allowing physicians to send patients login links through their email to access their account instead of waiting for the call center. The majority of iPLEDGE users now have access to their accounts without issues, and the gender-neutral guidelines have been in place since the original change.

Impact of iPLEDGE Categories on Transgender Patients

These changes specifically will improve the experience of transgender men and cisgender women who are at no risk for pregnancy and could be subjected to monthly pregnancy testing when it is not medically necessary.

Consider the following patient scenario. A transgender man presents to your dermatology office seeking treatment of severe nodulocystic acne. He was placed on hormonal replacement therapy with exogenous testosterone—injections, oral pills, topical gel, topical patches, or subdermal pellets—to achieve secondary sex characteristics and promote gender congruence. The patient mentions he has been amenorrheic for several months now. He has tried many topical acne treatments as well as oral antibiotics without much benefit and is now interested in enrolling in iPLEDGE to obtain isotretinoin. With the prior iPLEDGE registration packets, how would this transgender man be classified? As a female with childbearing potential due to his retained ovaries and uterus? What if he did not endorse engaging in sexual intercourse that could result in pregnancy?

Transgender patients have unique and unmet needs that often are overlooked and prevent them from equitable, gender-affirming health care. For example, in a prospective study following 20 transgender men starting hormone replacement therapy, the percentage of patients with facial acne increased from 35% to 82% after 6 months of therapy.⁵ In addition, the increased psychosocial burden of acne may be especially difficult in these patients, as they already report higher rates of depression and suicidal ideation compared with their heterosexual cisgender peers.⁴ Further, the primary patient populations receiving isotretinoin typically are adolescents and young adults who are undergoing major physical, mental, and hormonal changes. Self-discovery and self-actualization develop over time, and our role as physicians is to advocate for all aspects of our patients’ health and eliminate barriers to optimal care.

Inclusive Language in iPLEDGE Categories

It is important to streamline access to care for all patients, and gender-affirming, culturally sensitive language is essential to building trust and understanding between patients and providers. Howa Yeung, MD, MSc, a dermatologist at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) who advocated for gender-neutral iPLEDGE registration, welcomes the change and stated it “will make my job easier. I no longer have to struggle between respecting the patient’s gender identity and providing medically necessary care for patients with severe acne.”³

Sanchez et al⁶ provided a list of structured questions providers can ask their patients to assess their risk regarding pregnancy: (1) Do you have a uterus and/or ovaries?, (2) Are you engaging in sexual intercourse with a person who has a penis?, and (3) If yes to these questions, what form(s) of birth control are you using? Providers should preface these questions with the following statement: “It is important that I ask these questions to assess your risk for becoming pregnant on this medication because isotretinoin can cause very serious birth defects.” It is important to review these questions and practice asking them so residents can operate from the same place of openness and understanding when caring for their patients.

Final Thoughts

The landscape of isotretinoin prescribing currently is changing on a day-to-day basis. As residents, it is important we stay up to date with the changes regarding our regularly dispensed medications. The main modification made to the iPLEDGE REMS system was switching the risk categories from 3 (females who can get pregnant, females who cannot get pregnant, males) to 2 (people who can get pregnant, people who cannot get pregnant). This change will make registration for iPLEDGE less complex and more inclusive for all patients. It is important for residents to stay at the forefront of these patient health issues and barriers to equal care, and this change represents a step in the right direction.

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When polio paralyzed a 3-year-old girl in Lilongwe, Malawi, in November 2021, public health experts in Malawi’s Ministry of Health responded quickly. The ministry partnered with the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund to mobilize a surge team of personnel and resources to vaccinate all 2.9 million Malawian children aged under 5 years, WHO reported in a news release.

The first of four sequential campaigns began on March 20 and expanded on March 24 to neighboring Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia. The multinational, multiagency effort aims to include Zimbabwean children as well and deliver over 80 million supplemental doses of bivalent oral polio vaccines to over 23 million children in these five countries by July.

Because it takes multiple polio vaccine doses to become fully immunized, the children are expected to receive four rounds of vaccine regardless of their vaccination history.

“It is important to conduct the campaigns now to boost the immunity of our children,” Annie Chauma-Mwale, MBBS, MPH, the chief medical officer of epidemiology and surveillance in Malawi’s Ministry of Health in Lilongwe, said in an interview. “Polio is not only a medical issue. Polio is also a socioeconomic issue with long-term impacts on the child, the country, and the globe.

“In Malawi, we are using our community health and health care facility structures to ensure we do not miss any eligible child,” explained Dr. Chauma-Mwale, who is also the deputy incident manager of the poliovirus outbreak response. “We aim to play our role in the global eradication of polio by protecting the vulnerable and curtailing any potential transmission as early as possible.”

Of the three variants of wild, naturally occurring poliovirus, types 2 and 3 have been eradicated, but wild poliovirus type 1 (WPV1) remains endemic in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As reported recently by this news organization, the girl in Malawi was infected with a WPV1 strain that had been circulating for years in Pakistan’s Sindh Province.

Malawi’s most recent clinically confirmed WPV1 case was reported in 1992, and this is the first WPV1 case detected in Africa since 2016. The continent was declared free of indigenous wild polio in 2020 and is still considered free of wild poliovirus because the child’s illness was imported from elsewhere.

The 3-year-old girl developed acute flaccid paralysis in November 2021. In February 2022, virus from her stool was sequenced by the National Institute of Communicable Disease in South Africa and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On Feb. 16, Malawi was notified of the case, which was genetically linked to a sequence detected in Sindh Province around 2 years earlier.
 

‘Do not ignore polio’

Within 24 hours, the Government of Malawi declared a public health emergency and activated the national Emergency Operations Centre. Within 72 hours, the GPEI rapid response team arrived in the country. The Ministry of Health partnered with GPEI, WHO, and UNICEF to mobilize the campaign and begin vaccinating children on March 20.

‘’We rely on clinicians to support the surveillance of polio through case searches, both active and passive,” Mike Nenani Chisema, MBBS, MPH, the program manager of the expanded program on immunization and the polio response operations manager in Malawi’s Ministry of Health, said in an interview.

He noted that the young girl was diagnosed correctly and millions of children are now being protected against the disease, thanks to the acumen of one hospital clinician.

“Remember, we still have polio in some countries, and every country is at risk,” he cautioned. “Don’t forget to look for the obvious and do not ignore polio, regardless of economic status.’’

According to GPEI, all countries – especially those with weak immunization and other public health programs whose residents trade or travel to and from endemic countries – are at risk for imported polio.

Anita Gupta, DO, MPP, PharmD, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that she welcomes this effort.

“Given the decades of published evidence and understanding on the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, this program in Malawi is the right step to take,” Gupta, who is not involved in the campaigns, said in an interview. “Polio is preventable, and acting now will prevent spread later.”

Dr. Chauma-Mwale and Dr. Chisema are employees of Malawi’s Ministry of Health. Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

Since it appeared in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics in 1973, the “Goldwater rule” – often referred to in terms of where in the APA’s guideline it can be found, Section 7.3 – has placed a stringent prohibition on psychiatrists offering professional opinions about public figures “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”¹

Some psychiatrists experienced the restrictive nature of Section 7.3 more acutely perhaps than ever during the Trump presidency. This spurred numerous articles criticizing the guideline as an outdated “gag rule”² that harms the public image of psychiatry.³ Some psychiatrists violated the rule to warn the public of the dangers of a president with “incipient dementia”⁴ occupying the most powerful position on earth.

Following President Trump’s exit from the White House, the alarm bells surrounding his presidency have quieted. Criticisms of the Goldwater rule, on the other hand, have persisted. Many of these criticisms now call for the rule to be refined, allowing for psychiatrists to give their professional opinions about public figures, but with certain guidelines on how to do so.⁵ Few have yet to make a sober case for the outright abolition of Section 7.3.⁶

Self-regulating and internal policing are important factors in the continued independence of the medical profession, and we should continue to hold each other to high professional standards. That being said, do psychiatrists need training wheels to prevent us from devolving into unprofessional social commentators? Other medical specialties do not see the need to implement a rule preventing their colleagues from expressing expertise in fear of embarrassment. Do we not have faith in our ability to conduct ourselves professionally? Is the Goldwater rule an admission of a juvenile lack of self-control within our field?

Not only do other medical specialties not forcibly handhold their members in public settings, but other “providers” in the realm of mental health likewise do not implement such strict self-restraints. Psychiatry staying silent on the matter of public figures leaves a void filled by other, arguably less qualified, individuals. Subsequently, the public discord risks being flooded with pseudoscientific pontification and distorted views of psychiatric illness. The cycle of speculating on the mental fitness of the president has outlived President Trump, with concerns about Joe Biden’s incoherence and waning cognition.⁷ Therein is an important argument to be made for the public duty of psychiatrists, with their greater expertise and clinical acumen, to weigh in on matters of societal importance in an attempt to dispel dangerous misconceptions.

Practical limitations are often raised and serve as the cornerstone for the Goldwater rule. Specifically, the limitation being that a psychiatrist cannot provide a professional opinion about an individual without a proper in-person evaluation. The psychiatric interview could be considered the most in-depth and comprehensive evaluation in all of medicine. Even so, is a trained psychiatrist presented with grandiosity, flight-of-ideas, and pressured speech unable to comment on the possibility of mania without a lengthy and comprehensive evaluation? How much disorganization of behavior and dialogue does one need to observe to recognize psychosis? For the experienced psychiatrist, many of these behavioral hallmarks are akin to an ST elevation on an EKG representing a heart attack.

When considering less extreme examples of mental affliction, such as depression and anxiety, many signs – including demeanor, motor activity, manner of speaking, and other aspects of behavior – are apparent to the perceptive psychiatrist without needing an extensive interview that dives into the depths of a person’s social history and childhood. After all, our own criteria for depression and mania do not require the presence of social stressors or childhood trauma. Even personality disorders can be reasonably postulated when a person behaves in a particular fashion. The recognition of transitional objects, items used to provide psychological comfort, including the “teddy bear sign” are common and scientifically studied methods to recognize personality disorder.⁸

The necessity for an in-person evaluation has become less compelling over the years. In our modern age, important social moments are memorialized in countless videos that are arguably more relevant, more accurate, and less subjective than a psychiatric interview. Furthermore, forensic psychiatrists routinely comment on individuals they have not examined for a variety of reasons, from postmortem analysis to the refusal of the client to be interviewed. Moreover, and with significant contradiction, many leaders in the field of psychiatry view integrated care, the practice of psychiatrists advising primary care doctors, often without even seeing patients, to be the future of psychiatry.⁹

Some reading this may scoff at the above examples. Perhaps Section 7.3 speaks to an underlying insecurity in our field regarding our ability to accurately diagnose. That insecurity is not unfounded. In terms of the DSM-5, the bar for reliability has been lowered to a kappa of 0.2-0.4, from a previous standard of 0.6, in an attempt to avoid critiques of unreliability.¹⁰ Yet herein lies a powerful recognition of the necessity of the Goldwater rule. If psychiatrists cannot reliably agree on the presence of diagnoses in the controlled setting of scientific study, how can we expect to speak with coherence and consistency on highly mediatized and provoking topics?

The defense – that the difficulty psychiatrists have at providing an accurate diagnosis stems from the immense complexity of the system being evaluated, the human mind – is a valid one. Attempts to force such complex pathology, with all its many variables, into the check-box approach implemented in the DSM inevitably leads to problems with diagnostic reliability. Still, as psychiatrists we retain a level of expertise in assessing and treating complex disorders of the mind that no other field can claim.

The duty physicians have not only to work toward the health of their individual patients, but also to act in service of the public health and well-being of communities in which our patients live, is well established. How ethical is it then for psychiatry to absolve itself from duty when it comes to public figures at the center of shaping public opinion? There are numerous recent, high-profile instances where our expertise may have helped shine light in an otherwise murky public discussion filled with disinformation. The death of George Floyd and the year of turmoil that followed is a salient example. The conservatorship of Britney Spears and the resulting societal outcry is another. Even setting the matter of diagnosis aside, we can help illuminate the societal implications of conservatorship laws,¹¹ in addition to providing input on how to safely and responsibly approach an individual who is in crisis, under the influence of multiple illicit substances, and possibly suffering from excited delirium.

Whether psychiatry has progressed enough as a medical specialty to trust ourselves with the option of providing professional opinions on public figures is an ongoing debate. The persistence of the Goldwater rule is a strong testament to the internal lack of confidence among psychiatrists regarding our ability to provide accurate diagnoses, act with integrity in the public space, and foster a positive public image. That lack of confidence may be well deserved. However, it is possible that our field will never go through the necessary pains of maturing as long as Section 7.3 remains in place.
 

Dr. Compton is a psychiatry resident at University of California, San Diego. His background includes medical education, mental health advocacy, work with underserved populations, and brain cancer research. Dr. Compton has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Badre is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist in San Diego. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Dr. Badre can be reached at his website, BadreMD.com. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Psychiatric Association. The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Section 7. American Psychiatric Association; 2013 edition.

2. Glass LL. The Goldwater rule is broken. Here’s how to fix it. STAT News. 2018 June 18.

3. Plymyer D. The Goldwater rule paradox. 2020 Aug 7.

4. Lieberman JA. Trump’s brain and the 25th Amendment. Vice. 2017 Sep 8.

5. Blotcky AD et al. The Goldwater rule is fine, if refined. Here’s how to do it. Psychiatric Times. 2022 Jan 6;39(1).

6. Blotcky AD and Norrholm SD. After Trump, end the Goldwater rule once and for all. New York Daily News. 2020 Dec 22.

7. Stephens B. Biden should not run again – And he should say he won’t. New York Times. 2021 Dec 14.

8. Schmaling KB et al. The positive teddy bear sign: Transitional objects in the medical setting. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994 Dec;182(12):725.

9. Badre N et al. Psychopharmacologic management in integrated care: Challenges for residency education. Acad Psychiatry. 2015; 39(4):466-9.

10. Kraemer HC et al. DSM-5: How reliable is reliable enough? Am J Psychiatry. 2012 Jan;169(1):13-5.

11. Badre N and Compton C. Britney Spears – Reflections on conservatorship. Clinical Psychiatry News. 2021 Nov 16.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

The Diagnosis: Acquired Lymphangioma Circumscriptum

A skin biopsy of the plaque on the right labium majus showed a proliferation of well-formed, dilated lymphatic vessels lined by benign-appearing endothelial cells in the papillary dermis (Figure). These findings were consistent with a diagnosis of acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (ALC) in the setting of severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

Image courtesy of Alicia Schnebelen, MD (Dallas, Texas).

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum (also known as acquired lymphangiectasia or secondary lymphangioma¹) is a rare skin finding resulting from chronic lymphatic obstruction that leads to dilated lymphatic vessels within the dermis.^2,3 There also is a distinct congenital form of lymphangioma circumscriptum caused by lymphatic malformations present at birth.^2,4 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva is a rare phenomenon.³ Identified causes include radiation or surgery for carcinoma, solid gynecologic tumors, lymphadenectomy, Crohn disease, and tuberculosis and other infections, all of which can disrupt normal lymphatics to cause ALC.^2-4 Hidradenitis suppurativa is not a widely recognized cause of ALC; however, this phenomenon is reported in the literature. A long-standing history of severe HS complicated by lymphedema seems to precede the development of ALC in the reported cases, as in our patient.^5-7

Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can appear in women of all ages as frog spawn or cobblestone papules or vesicles, sometimes with a hyperkeratotic or verrucous appearance.^2,4 Associated symptoms include serous drainage, edema, pruritus, and discomfort. The lesions may become eroded, which can predispose patients to secondary infections.^1,2 Acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum of the vulva can be difficult to diagnose, as the time interval between the initial cause and the appearance of skin findings can be years, leading to the misdiagnosis of ALC as other similar-appearing genital skin conditions such as squamous cell carcinoma or condyloma.^4,8 When misidentified as an infection, diagnosis can lead to substantial distress, abstinence from sexual activity, and unnecessary and painful treatments.

Skin biopsy is helpful in distinguishing ALC from other differential diagnoses such as condylomata acuminata, squamous cell carcinoma, and condyloma lata. Histopathology in ALC is notable for dilated lymphatic vessels filled with hypocellular fluid and lined with endothelial cells in the superficial dermis; the epidermis can appear hyperplastic, hyperkeratotic, or eroded.^3-5,9 These lymphatic vessels stain positively for CD31 and D2-40, markers for endothelial cells and lymphatic endothelium, respectively, and negative for CD34, a marker for vascular endothelium.^3,4,9 Features suggestive of condylomata acuminata such as rounded parakeratosis, hypergranulosis, and vacuolated keratinocytes⁹ are not present. The giant condyloma of Buschke-Löwenstein, a clinical variant of verrucous squamous cell carcinoma, also can present as a warty ulcerated papule or plaque in the genital region, but the characteristic rounded eosinophilic keratinocytes pushing down into the dermis⁹ are not seen in ALC. Secondary syphilis is associated with condyloma lata, which are verrucous or fleshy-appearing papules often coalescing into plaques located in the anogenital region. Pathologic features of secondary syphilis include vacuolar interface dermatitis and acanthosis with long slender rete ridges.⁹ Squamous cell carcinoma, which can arise from inflammation associated with long-standing HS, must be ruled out, as it is associated with a high risk of mortality in patients with HS.¹⁰

It is noteworthy to recognize the various, often confusing nomenclature used to describe cutaneous lymphatic conditions. The terms acquired lymphangioma circumscriptum, secondary lymphangioma, and lymphangiectasia are used interchangeably to describe dilated lymphatic vessels in the skin.¹ The term atypical vascular lesion refers to lymphectasias of the skin of the breast due to prior radiation therapy most often used in the treatment of breast carcinoma; clinically, these present as red-brown or flesh-colored papules or telangiectatic plaques on the breast.^11,12 Lymphedema also may occur alongside atypical vascular lesions, as prior radiation or surgical lymph node dissection can predispose patients to impaired lymphatic drainage.¹³ The lymphatic histopathologic subtype of atypical vascular lesions may appear similar to ALC; however, the vascular subtype will demonstrate collections of capillary-sized vessels and extravasated erythrocytes.^11,12 Unlike ALC, the benign nature of atypical vascular lesions has been questioned, as they may be associated with a small risk for progression to angiosarcoma.^11-13 It also is important to distinguish ALC from lymphangiomatosis, a generalized lymphatic anomaly that is characterized by extensive lymphatic malformations involving numerous internal organs, including the lungs and gastrointestinal tract. This condition is associated with notable morbidity and mortality.¹³

Although the suffix of the term lymphangioma suggests a neoplastic process, ALC is not a neoplasm and can be managed expectantly in many cases.^2,3,8 However, due to cosmetic appearance, pain, discomfort, and recurrent bacterial superinfections, many patients pursue treatment. Treatment options for ALC include sclerotherapy, electrocautery, radiofrequency or carbon dioxide laser ablation, and excision, though recurrence can arise.^3-5,7,8 Our patient elected to manage her asymptomatic ALC expectantly.

A New York appeals court has upheld a $1.2 million verdict against an eye surgeon after his patient went blind after cataract removal and lens replacement surgery.

Carola Rozon visited New York ophthalmologic surgeon Edwin Schottenstein, MD, in 2013 to undergo a second eye surgery, according to court documents. As with the previous surgery, Dr. Schottenstein performed phacoemulsification, a technique by which the tip of an ultrasonic machine is inserted into the lens through a small incision in the anterior chamber. The machine’s vibrations break up the hard, inner portion of the nucleus that is affected by the cataract, and the lens is then extracted with irrigation and suction, leaving the capsular bag filled with fluid.

Dr. Schottenstein made a 2.75-mm incision in the anterior chamber and successfully removed most of the nucleus of the cataract lens, according to the appellate decision. However, complications arose during the surgery when the capsular bag tore, and a piece of the lens dropped through the tear into the back of the patient’s eye.

Following the complications, Dr. Schottenstein injected a folded 6-mm intraocular lens (IOL) into the patient’s eye, but it was off center and moved toward the back, according to court documents. He removed it with holding forceps, pulling the unfolded 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision.

Because it was New Years Eve, Dr. Schottenstein did not immediately seek assistance from a vitreoretinal surgeon. Two days later, on Jan. 2, 2014, the patient was referred to a vitreoretinal surgeon for removal of the dropped lens. The vitreoretinal surgeon reported signs of trauma to the patient’s eye, including corneal edema and blood from a vitreous hemorrhage. Neither the ophthalmologist nor the vitreoretinal surgeon reported any injury to the patient’s iris.

Because of the vitreous hemorrhage, the vitreoretinal surgeon could not visualize the back of the eye. He used a B-scan ultrasound to create an image of the back of the eye to determine whether there were any retinal tears. According to court records, the vitreoretinal surgeon reported that the B-scan did not detect any retinal tears, and the vitreoretinal surgeon scheduled the patient for a follow-up the following week.

On Jan. 9, 2014, there was still blood in the patient’s eye from the hemorrhage. The vitreoretinal surgeon did not perform another B scan and stated that, with a fundoscope, he could see the back of the eye and the piece of fallen lens, according to court documents. No retinal tears were seen. Surgery was scheduled for 6 days later.

During the surgery, the vitreoretinal surgeon noted a choroidal effusion, swelling of the blood vessels that feed the retina. After draining it, he saw a giant retinal tear and retinal detachment at the top of the patient’s eye. Over the course of a year, the vitreoretinal surgeon performed five more surgeries to repair the giant retinal tear, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the patient lost sight in her right eye.

The patient sued Dr. Schottenstein for malpractice in 2016, alleging that, as a result of his negligence, she suffered the retinal tear and is now blind in her right eye. A trial took place in November 2019.
 

What did the experts say?

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, an ophthalmologic surgeon, testified that removing the 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision and the associated manipulations of the patient’s eye caused the retinal tear and the ensuing retinal detachment, according to court documents. The small tear was not immediately seen by the physician because he was not looking at that part of the eye. The tear grew to become the giant tear eventually seen by the vitreoretinal surgeon, the expert testified.

The vitreoretinal surgeon would not have seen the small retinal tear when he first examined the patient because B-scan ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose retinal tears, he testified.

A vitreoretinal expert for Dr. Schottenstein testified that retinal tears that are tractional in origin tend to have a retinal flap that can be seen as a small indentation on a B-scan ultrasound. However, a tear with no flap would not be visualized by the scan. An ophthalmologic surgeon who testified for Dr. Schottenstein said it’s possible the retinal tear would not have been visible to Dr. Schottenstein or the vitreoretinal surgeon if vitreous fluid that was pulled into the anterior chamber was not a strand but just a blob too small to distort the pupil.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding the patient $1.2 million. Dr. Schottenstein requested the trial court to overturn the jury’s verdict and award judgment in his favor or grant a new trial, which was denied.

On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department affirmed the decision.

“To be against the weight of the evidence, a verdict must be palpably wrong,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “In this case, we cannot say the verdict is palpably wrong. The jury found that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant. They deemed the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, when considered with the documentary evidence and all the other evidence in the case, more credible than the testimony of the vitreoretinal surgeon, and defendant’s expert witnesses. The differing testimony and conclusions on causation given by defendant’s witnesses do not require a different outcome.”

Attorneys for the parties in this case did not return messages seeking comment.

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

A New York appeals court has upheld a $1.2 million verdict against an eye surgeon after his patient went blind after cataract removal and lens replacement surgery.

Carola Rozon visited New York ophthalmologic surgeon Edwin Schottenstein, MD, in 2013 to undergo a second eye surgery, according to court documents. As with the previous surgery, Dr. Schottenstein performed phacoemulsification, a technique by which the tip of an ultrasonic machine is inserted into the lens through a small incision in the anterior chamber. The machine’s vibrations break up the hard, inner portion of the nucleus that is affected by the cataract, and the lens is then extracted with irrigation and suction, leaving the capsular bag filled with fluid.

Dr. Schottenstein made a 2.75-mm incision in the anterior chamber and successfully removed most of the nucleus of the cataract lens, according to the appellate decision. However, complications arose during the surgery when the capsular bag tore, and a piece of the lens dropped through the tear into the back of the patient’s eye.

Following the complications, Dr. Schottenstein injected a folded 6-mm intraocular lens (IOL) into the patient’s eye, but it was off center and moved toward the back, according to court documents. He removed it with holding forceps, pulling the unfolded 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision.

Because it was New Years Eve, Dr. Schottenstein did not immediately seek assistance from a vitreoretinal surgeon. Two days later, on Jan. 2, 2014, the patient was referred to a vitreoretinal surgeon for removal of the dropped lens. The vitreoretinal surgeon reported signs of trauma to the patient’s eye, including corneal edema and blood from a vitreous hemorrhage. Neither the ophthalmologist nor the vitreoretinal surgeon reported any injury to the patient’s iris.

Because of the vitreous hemorrhage, the vitreoretinal surgeon could not visualize the back of the eye. He used a B-scan ultrasound to create an image of the back of the eye to determine whether there were any retinal tears. According to court records, the vitreoretinal surgeon reported that the B-scan did not detect any retinal tears, and the vitreoretinal surgeon scheduled the patient for a follow-up the following week.

On Jan. 9, 2014, there was still blood in the patient’s eye from the hemorrhage. The vitreoretinal surgeon did not perform another B scan and stated that, with a fundoscope, he could see the back of the eye and the piece of fallen lens, according to court documents. No retinal tears were seen. Surgery was scheduled for 6 days later.

During the surgery, the vitreoretinal surgeon noted a choroidal effusion, swelling of the blood vessels that feed the retina. After draining it, he saw a giant retinal tear and retinal detachment at the top of the patient’s eye. Over the course of a year, the vitreoretinal surgeon performed five more surgeries to repair the giant retinal tear, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the patient lost sight in her right eye.

The patient sued Dr. Schottenstein for malpractice in 2016, alleging that, as a result of his negligence, she suffered the retinal tear and is now blind in her right eye. A trial took place in November 2019.
 

What did the experts say?

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, an ophthalmologic surgeon, testified that removing the 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision and the associated manipulations of the patient’s eye caused the retinal tear and the ensuing retinal detachment, according to court documents. The small tear was not immediately seen by the physician because he was not looking at that part of the eye. The tear grew to become the giant tear eventually seen by the vitreoretinal surgeon, the expert testified.

The vitreoretinal surgeon would not have seen the small retinal tear when he first examined the patient because B-scan ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose retinal tears, he testified.

A vitreoretinal expert for Dr. Schottenstein testified that retinal tears that are tractional in origin tend to have a retinal flap that can be seen as a small indentation on a B-scan ultrasound. However, a tear with no flap would not be visualized by the scan. An ophthalmologic surgeon who testified for Dr. Schottenstein said it’s possible the retinal tear would not have been visible to Dr. Schottenstein or the vitreoretinal surgeon if vitreous fluid that was pulled into the anterior chamber was not a strand but just a blob too small to distort the pupil.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding the patient $1.2 million. Dr. Schottenstein requested the trial court to overturn the jury’s verdict and award judgment in his favor or grant a new trial, which was denied.

On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department affirmed the decision.

“To be against the weight of the evidence, a verdict must be palpably wrong,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “In this case, we cannot say the verdict is palpably wrong. The jury found that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant. They deemed the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, when considered with the documentary evidence and all the other evidence in the case, more credible than the testimony of the vitreoretinal surgeon, and defendant’s expert witnesses. The differing testimony and conclusions on causation given by defendant’s witnesses do not require a different outcome.”

Attorneys for the parties in this case did not return messages seeking comment.

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

A New York appeals court has upheld a $1.2 million verdict against an eye surgeon after his patient went blind after cataract removal and lens replacement surgery.

Carola Rozon visited New York ophthalmologic surgeon Edwin Schottenstein, MD, in 2013 to undergo a second eye surgery, according to court documents. As with the previous surgery, Dr. Schottenstein performed phacoemulsification, a technique by which the tip of an ultrasonic machine is inserted into the lens through a small incision in the anterior chamber. The machine’s vibrations break up the hard, inner portion of the nucleus that is affected by the cataract, and the lens is then extracted with irrigation and suction, leaving the capsular bag filled with fluid.

Dr. Schottenstein made a 2.75-mm incision in the anterior chamber and successfully removed most of the nucleus of the cataract lens, according to the appellate decision. However, complications arose during the surgery when the capsular bag tore, and a piece of the lens dropped through the tear into the back of the patient’s eye.

Following the complications, Dr. Schottenstein injected a folded 6-mm intraocular lens (IOL) into the patient’s eye, but it was off center and moved toward the back, according to court documents. He removed it with holding forceps, pulling the unfolded 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision.

Because it was New Years Eve, Dr. Schottenstein did not immediately seek assistance from a vitreoretinal surgeon. Two days later, on Jan. 2, 2014, the patient was referred to a vitreoretinal surgeon for removal of the dropped lens. The vitreoretinal surgeon reported signs of trauma to the patient’s eye, including corneal edema and blood from a vitreous hemorrhage. Neither the ophthalmologist nor the vitreoretinal surgeon reported any injury to the patient’s iris.

Because of the vitreous hemorrhage, the vitreoretinal surgeon could not visualize the back of the eye. He used a B-scan ultrasound to create an image of the back of the eye to determine whether there were any retinal tears. According to court records, the vitreoretinal surgeon reported that the B-scan did not detect any retinal tears, and the vitreoretinal surgeon scheduled the patient for a follow-up the following week.

On Jan. 9, 2014, there was still blood in the patient’s eye from the hemorrhage. The vitreoretinal surgeon did not perform another B scan and stated that, with a fundoscope, he could see the back of the eye and the piece of fallen lens, according to court documents. No retinal tears were seen. Surgery was scheduled for 6 days later.

During the surgery, the vitreoretinal surgeon noted a choroidal effusion, swelling of the blood vessels that feed the retina. After draining it, he saw a giant retinal tear and retinal detachment at the top of the patient’s eye. Over the course of a year, the vitreoretinal surgeon performed five more surgeries to repair the giant retinal tear, but they were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the patient lost sight in her right eye.

The patient sued Dr. Schottenstein for malpractice in 2016, alleging that, as a result of his negligence, she suffered the retinal tear and is now blind in her right eye. A trial took place in November 2019.
 

What did the experts say?

At trial, the plaintiff’s expert, an ophthalmologic surgeon, testified that removing the 6-mm IOL through the 2.75-mm incision and the associated manipulations of the patient’s eye caused the retinal tear and the ensuing retinal detachment, according to court documents. The small tear was not immediately seen by the physician because he was not looking at that part of the eye. The tear grew to become the giant tear eventually seen by the vitreoretinal surgeon, the expert testified.

The vitreoretinal surgeon would not have seen the small retinal tear when he first examined the patient because B-scan ultrasounds are not generally used to diagnose retinal tears, he testified.

A vitreoretinal expert for Dr. Schottenstein testified that retinal tears that are tractional in origin tend to have a retinal flap that can be seen as a small indentation on a B-scan ultrasound. However, a tear with no flap would not be visualized by the scan. An ophthalmologic surgeon who testified for Dr. Schottenstein said it’s possible the retinal tear would not have been visible to Dr. Schottenstein or the vitreoretinal surgeon if vitreous fluid that was pulled into the anterior chamber was not a strand but just a blob too small to distort the pupil.

The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding the patient $1.2 million. Dr. Schottenstein requested the trial court to overturn the jury’s verdict and award judgment in his favor or grant a new trial, which was denied.

On March 1, 2022, the Supreme Court Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department affirmed the decision.

“To be against the weight of the evidence, a verdict must be palpably wrong,” the judges wrote in their opinion. “In this case, we cannot say the verdict is palpably wrong. The jury found that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by defendant. They deemed the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, when considered with the documentary evidence and all the other evidence in the case, more credible than the testimony of the vitreoretinal surgeon, and defendant’s expert witnesses. The differing testimony and conclusions on causation given by defendant’s witnesses do not require a different outcome.”

Attorneys for the parties in this case did not return messages seeking comment.

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

Regardless of the pandemic’s sometimes mercurial behavior, the cardiology community appears set to reclaim valued traditions perhaps taken for granted in the pre-COVID era.

They include the bustling scientific congress and its myriad educational and networking prospects, along with pleiotropic effects like unplanned reunions with colleagues and catching up face-to-face with old friends.

That seems evident in the growing number of registrants for live attendance at at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, set for this Saturday through Monday in Washington as well as virtually, for a global reach that was unattainable in the pre-COVID era.

Registrations had hit the 11,000 mark and were picking up speed in recent weeks, ACC 2022 cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said at a mid-March presentation to the media.

They had reached about 12,880 and were still climbing a week before the conference, the ACC confirmed to this news organization. By then the professional registration had surpassed 9,900, of whom more than two-thirds reported plans to attend in person.

Dr. Morris said there had been 117 international submissions for what turned out to be 39 coveted spots on the meeting’s Late-Breaking Clinical Trial (LBCT) and Featured Clinical Research agenda spread across eight separate sessions.

On-site participants at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center should head for the Main Tent in Hall D for all LBCT presentations; venues for the Featured Clinical Research sessions are as noted below. Their real-time virtual equivalents will reside on the online platform’s Hot Topics channel. All noted session times are Eastern Daylight Time.
 

Saturday, April 2, 9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/Journal of the American College of Cardiology LBCT (I)

Leading off the conference’s first LBCT session, the randomized VALOR-HCM trial explored whether 16 weeks of mavacamten (MyoKardia) could help patients with severe obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) avoid septal reduction therapy, either surgical or by alcohol ablation.

The 22-center VALOR-HCM trial with an estimated enrollment of 100 follows EXPLORER-HCM, which in 2020 suggested the novel myosin-inhibiting agent could improve symptoms, exercise capacity, cardiac remodeling, and quality of life in such patients.

Simply advising people with heart failure (HF) to consume less salt is one thing, but it’s another to show them clinical trial evidence that it might help keep them out of the hospital. The SODIUM-HF (Study of Dietary Intervention Under 100 mmol in Heart Failure) study, conducted at 27 sites in six countries, sought to provide that evidence.

The trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with NYHA class 2-3 HF to consume no more than 1,500 mg/day in sodium or to receive standard advice to limit sodium intake, and followed them for a year for the endpoint of death from any cause, cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, or CV emergency department visit.

SODIUM-HF “may provide a rigorous evidence base for sodium restriction in patients with heart failure and may truly change our practice and how we recommend dietary modification,” ACC 2022 vice chair Douglas E. Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the media presentation.

In the same session, the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) study explored whether blood pressure (BP) control in pregnant women with new or untreated chronic hypertension could help avert preeclampsia, poor fetal outcomes, and other adverse events.

CHAP assigned about 2,400 women to receive either stepwise antihypertensive therapy to a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or lower or no such meds unless their BP reached or exceeded 160/105 mm Hg. Stepwise therapy featured either labetalol or extended-release nifedipine to start, the other agent added as necessary.

The LBCT block also includes the POISE-3 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3) comparison of the hemostatic agent tranexamic acid vs. placebo in nearly 10,000 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. A separate randomization of the same cohort, to be reported at a Monday LBCT session, compared pre- and perioperative BP-control strategies.
 

Saturday, April 2, 12:00 p.m.–1:15 p.m. Featured Clinical Research I. Room 143A

This session features a subgroup analysis by age from the REVERSE-IT trial, which had previously showcased the monoclonal antibody bentracimab (PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals) for its ability to reverse the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor.

REVERSE-IT is accompanied on the schedule by several secondary-endpoint presentations from trials whose primary outcomes have already been presented at meetings or in the journals.

They include the SCORED trial of sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD); COMPLETE, which explored complete revascularization of multivessel coronary disease at primary stenting; and the FAME-3 comparison of coronary bypass surgery (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) readings.

The session is to conclude with EDIT-CMD, which was a small, randomized assessment of diltiazem for improving microvascular dysfunction in patients with chronic angina despite nonobstructive coronary disease.
 

Sunday, April 3, 8:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/Journal of the American Medical Association LBCT (II)

The SuperWIN (Supermarket Web Intervention) study tested an innovative strategy for community-based promotion of healthy lifestyle choices: point-of-purchase dietary education for grocery shoppers with an online instructional component, and follow-up to determine whether it influenced future food choices.

“Dietary interventions are notoriously difficult for us to implement, let alone to study scientifically,” Dr. Drachman observed. “So we think that there may be opportunity for dietary interventions to be best implemented at grocery stores where people are doing their shopping for food.”

SuperWIN compared supermarket shoppers with at least one CV risk factor who participated in the education intervention to a nonintervention control group for any changes in their DASH scores. The scores reflected consistency with the venerable DASH diet based on participants’ food purchases over 3 months.

In the same session, the MITIGATE trial explored whether daily administration of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) might cut the risk of upper respiratory infection (especially from SARS-CoV-2 or seasonal influenza virus) in persons 50 or older with a history of clinical coronary, neurovascular, or peripheral vascular disease or revascularization. The trial has an estimated enrollment of 39,600.

Accompanying SuperWIN and MITIGATE are studies of several dyslipidemia drugs, including the discontinued antisense agent vupanorsen (Pfizer), as tested in TRANSLATE-TIMI 70;  the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent), explored for its effects on coronary plaque volume and composition in the PACMAN-AMI trial; and the APOLLO trial, a phase 1 evaluation of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) that suppresses the molecular machinery in the liver that produces lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).

The 32-patient APOLLO trial’s recently released top-line results suggested that SLN360 at varying dosages reduced Lp(a) levels by about one-half to more than 90%. Although elevated Lp(a) is known to track with CV risk, it remains to be shown whether dropping Lp(a) levels pharmacologically is protective.
 

Sunday, April 3, 9:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/New England Journal of Medicine LBCT (III)

The meeting’s all-HF late-breaker session includes the METEORIC-HF trial, which compared the myotropic agent omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) against placebo for effects on exercise performance over 20 weeks. The trial entered 276 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and reduced peak VO₂.

The GALACTIC-HF trial had previously suggested that the drug improved the risk of HF-related events or CV death in more than 8000 patients with HFrEF, those with the lowest ejection fractions benefiting the most.

This block of trials also features DIAMOND, the latest trial with a gemologic name to look at the potassium sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa) for any protection against hyperkalemia, a familiar side effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors. DIAMOND tested patiromer in 878 patients with HFrEF who were on beta-blockers and other HF-appropriate medications and had a history of drug-associated hyperkalemia.

Previously, the AMBER trial of patients with CKD or refractory hypertension on spironolactone had suggested the drug might be protective enough against hyperkalemia to allow higher and more consistent dosing of BP-lowering agents.

Also in the session: the randomized IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events) trial, with an estimated 5,000 patients with HF in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East; PROMPT-HF, with a projected 1,310 HF patients and billed as a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial of a strategy for improving guideline-directed outpatient medical therapy; and MAVA-LTE, the long-term extension study of an estimated 310 patients who were in the MAVERICK-HCM and EXPLORER-HCM mavacamten trials.
 

Sunday, April 3, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Featured Clinical Research II. Main Tent, Hall D

The arrhythmia-centric session includes PARTITA, with its estimated 590 patients with primary- or secondary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The trial followed them initially for burden of untreated nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or events treated with anti-tachycardia pacing. Then it randomly assigned those who experienced a first appropriate ICD shock to either immediate VT ablation or standard care. The latter included ablation on next occurrence of arrhythmic storm.

Investigational oral factor XIa inhibitors, viewed by many as potentially safer as anticoagulants than contemporary oral inhibitors of factor Xa, are now on the scene and include milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen) and, lately, asundexian (BAY 2433334; Bayer). The latter agent was compared to the factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (Eliquis) in 753 patients with AF in the phase 2 PACIFIC-AF trial, which looked at the newer drug’s safety and optimal dosing.

Also on the bill: a long-term follow-up of the mAFA-2 (Mobile AF Application 2) extension study, which explored the value of a smartphone-based atrial fibrillation (AF) screening app for improving risk of AF-related events; a presentation billed as “Residual Leaks Post Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion”; and one that declares “low rates of guideline-directed care” to be “associated with higher mortality” in patients with pacemakers or ICDs.
 

Monday, April 4, 8:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. LBCT IV

This session is to open with the PROTECT trial, which sought to determine whether perioperative “aggressive warming” may be cardioprotective in patients with CV risk factors undergoing noncardiac surgery. Its estimated 5,100 patients were randomly assigned to a procedure that achieves normothermia, that is 37° C (98.6° F), vs. standard care in which patients’ core temperature may decline to no further than 35.5° C (95.9° F).

Next on the list are a second POISE-3 comparison of BP-control strategies comparing hypotension avoidance vs. hypertension avoidance in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery; the pivotal CLASP 2 TR trial of patients with symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation on optimal medical therapy with vs. without treatment with the Edwards PASCAL Transcatheter Repair System; and one said to provide “insights from the Corevalve US Pivotal and SURTAVI trials” on 5-year incidence, timing, and predictors of hemodynamic valve deterioration transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprostheses.”

Rounding out the block of presentations: the ADAPT-TAVR comparison of the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Lixiana) to dual-antiplatelet therapy for prevention of leaflet thrombosis after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The 235-patient trial was conducted at five centers in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
 

Monday, April 4, 11:00–12:15 p.m. LBCT V

This session includes the FLAVOUR randomized comparison of PCI guided by either FFR or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in 1,700 patients with 40%-70% stenoses. The patients from centers in China and South Korea were followed for death from any cause, MI, or any repeat revascularization at 24 months.

Also scheduled: the 2-year report on 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in the ACC-sponsored quality improvement program GHATI (Global Heart Attack Treatment Initiative); the GIPS-4 myocardial protection study of an estimated 380 patients with STEMI assigned to receive pre- and post-PCI infusions of sodium thiosulfate or placebo, with infarct size at 4 months as the primary endpoint; and a randomized test of an arrhythmia-monitoring implant for influence on clinical outcomes in 802 patients with a history of MI but no pacemaker or ICD indication, called BIO-GUARD-MI,

Last in the session: the Chocolate Touch Study of peripheral-artery angioplasty using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) with a confectionery name that treats lesions not with theobromine, but the antiproliferative mainstay paclitaxel.

The randomized comparison of the Chocolate Touch DCB (TriReme Medical) and the more established Lutonix DCB (Bard) assigned a projected 585 patients with symptomatic peripheral vascular disease to treatment of superficial femoral or popliteal artery lesions with one of the two paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters.
 

Monday, April 4, 12:45–2 p.m. Featured Clinical Research III. Room 143A 

The final session features five subgroup analyses or other updates from trials that have already reported their primary outcomes. Among them is the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, which helped to revitalize hopes for renal denervation therapy as a catheter-based treatment for drug-resistant hypertension by showing significant effects on both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The new data follow the trial’s more than 400 patients out to 3 years.

There is also a symptom and quality-of-life analysis from the 530-patient EMPULSE trial of 530 patients with stabilized acute HF assigned in-hospital to start on empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo. The trial made a splash last year when it reported a significant improvement in risk for death or HF rehospitalization for its patients put on the SGLT2 inhibitor.

A secondary analysis from CANTOS is also featured; the trial had randomly assigned more than 10,000 patients with recent acute MI and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to receive or not receive the anti-inflammatory canakinumab (Ilaris). Those assigned to active therapy showed benefits for a range of outcomes, including CV mortality and stroke, but no decreases in cholesterol levels. Billing for the new CANTOS analysis promises insights on the “differential impact of residual inflammatory risk and residual cholesterol risk among atherosclerosis patients with and without chronic kidney disease.”

The session also features “trends and final results” from the NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) registry, which had shown excellent primary-PCI results without compromise of door-to-balloon times in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; and a FIDELITY analysis of cardiorenal endpoints by history of CV disease in the study’s more than 13,000 patients with diabetes and CKD assigned to placebo or finerenone (Kerendia), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

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

Regardless of the pandemic’s sometimes mercurial behavior, the cardiology community appears set to reclaim valued traditions perhaps taken for granted in the pre-COVID era.

They include the bustling scientific congress and its myriad educational and networking prospects, along with pleiotropic effects like unplanned reunions with colleagues and catching up face-to-face with old friends.

That seems evident in the growing number of registrants for live attendance at at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, set for this Saturday through Monday in Washington as well as virtually, for a global reach that was unattainable in the pre-COVID era.

Registrations had hit the 11,000 mark and were picking up speed in recent weeks, ACC 2022 cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said at a mid-March presentation to the media.

They had reached about 12,880 and were still climbing a week before the conference, the ACC confirmed to this news organization. By then the professional registration had surpassed 9,900, of whom more than two-thirds reported plans to attend in person.

Dr. Morris said there had been 117 international submissions for what turned out to be 39 coveted spots on the meeting’s Late-Breaking Clinical Trial (LBCT) and Featured Clinical Research agenda spread across eight separate sessions.

On-site participants at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center should head for the Main Tent in Hall D for all LBCT presentations; venues for the Featured Clinical Research sessions are as noted below. Their real-time virtual equivalents will reside on the online platform’s Hot Topics channel. All noted session times are Eastern Daylight Time.
 

Saturday, April 2, 9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/Journal of the American College of Cardiology LBCT (I)

Leading off the conference’s first LBCT session, the randomized VALOR-HCM trial explored whether 16 weeks of mavacamten (MyoKardia) could help patients with severe obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) avoid septal reduction therapy, either surgical or by alcohol ablation.

The 22-center VALOR-HCM trial with an estimated enrollment of 100 follows EXPLORER-HCM, which in 2020 suggested the novel myosin-inhibiting agent could improve symptoms, exercise capacity, cardiac remodeling, and quality of life in such patients.

Simply advising people with heart failure (HF) to consume less salt is one thing, but it’s another to show them clinical trial evidence that it might help keep them out of the hospital. The SODIUM-HF (Study of Dietary Intervention Under 100 mmol in Heart Failure) study, conducted at 27 sites in six countries, sought to provide that evidence.

The trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with NYHA class 2-3 HF to consume no more than 1,500 mg/day in sodium or to receive standard advice to limit sodium intake, and followed them for a year for the endpoint of death from any cause, cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, or CV emergency department visit.

SODIUM-HF “may provide a rigorous evidence base for sodium restriction in patients with heart failure and may truly change our practice and how we recommend dietary modification,” ACC 2022 vice chair Douglas E. Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the media presentation.

In the same session, the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) study explored whether blood pressure (BP) control in pregnant women with new or untreated chronic hypertension could help avert preeclampsia, poor fetal outcomes, and other adverse events.

CHAP assigned about 2,400 women to receive either stepwise antihypertensive therapy to a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or lower or no such meds unless their BP reached or exceeded 160/105 mm Hg. Stepwise therapy featured either labetalol or extended-release nifedipine to start, the other agent added as necessary.

The LBCT block also includes the POISE-3 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3) comparison of the hemostatic agent tranexamic acid vs. placebo in nearly 10,000 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. A separate randomization of the same cohort, to be reported at a Monday LBCT session, compared pre- and perioperative BP-control strategies.
 

Saturday, April 2, 12:00 p.m.–1:15 p.m. Featured Clinical Research I. Room 143A

This session features a subgroup analysis by age from the REVERSE-IT trial, which had previously showcased the monoclonal antibody bentracimab (PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals) for its ability to reverse the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor.

REVERSE-IT is accompanied on the schedule by several secondary-endpoint presentations from trials whose primary outcomes have already been presented at meetings or in the journals.

They include the SCORED trial of sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD); COMPLETE, which explored complete revascularization of multivessel coronary disease at primary stenting; and the FAME-3 comparison of coronary bypass surgery (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) readings.

The session is to conclude with EDIT-CMD, which was a small, randomized assessment of diltiazem for improving microvascular dysfunction in patients with chronic angina despite nonobstructive coronary disease.
 

Sunday, April 3, 8:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/Journal of the American Medical Association LBCT (II)

The SuperWIN (Supermarket Web Intervention) study tested an innovative strategy for community-based promotion of healthy lifestyle choices: point-of-purchase dietary education for grocery shoppers with an online instructional component, and follow-up to determine whether it influenced future food choices.

“Dietary interventions are notoriously difficult for us to implement, let alone to study scientifically,” Dr. Drachman observed. “So we think that there may be opportunity for dietary interventions to be best implemented at grocery stores where people are doing their shopping for food.”

SuperWIN compared supermarket shoppers with at least one CV risk factor who participated in the education intervention to a nonintervention control group for any changes in their DASH scores. The scores reflected consistency with the venerable DASH diet based on participants’ food purchases over 3 months.

In the same session, the MITIGATE trial explored whether daily administration of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) might cut the risk of upper respiratory infection (especially from SARS-CoV-2 or seasonal influenza virus) in persons 50 or older with a history of clinical coronary, neurovascular, or peripheral vascular disease or revascularization. The trial has an estimated enrollment of 39,600.

Accompanying SuperWIN and MITIGATE are studies of several dyslipidemia drugs, including the discontinued antisense agent vupanorsen (Pfizer), as tested in TRANSLATE-TIMI 70;  the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent), explored for its effects on coronary plaque volume and composition in the PACMAN-AMI trial; and the APOLLO trial, a phase 1 evaluation of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) that suppresses the molecular machinery in the liver that produces lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).

The 32-patient APOLLO trial’s recently released top-line results suggested that SLN360 at varying dosages reduced Lp(a) levels by about one-half to more than 90%. Although elevated Lp(a) is known to track with CV risk, it remains to be shown whether dropping Lp(a) levels pharmacologically is protective.
 

Sunday, April 3, 9:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/New England Journal of Medicine LBCT (III)

The meeting’s all-HF late-breaker session includes the METEORIC-HF trial, which compared the myotropic agent omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) against placebo for effects on exercise performance over 20 weeks. The trial entered 276 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and reduced peak VO₂.

The GALACTIC-HF trial had previously suggested that the drug improved the risk of HF-related events or CV death in more than 8000 patients with HFrEF, those with the lowest ejection fractions benefiting the most.

This block of trials also features DIAMOND, the latest trial with a gemologic name to look at the potassium sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa) for any protection against hyperkalemia, a familiar side effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors. DIAMOND tested patiromer in 878 patients with HFrEF who were on beta-blockers and other HF-appropriate medications and had a history of drug-associated hyperkalemia.

Previously, the AMBER trial of patients with CKD or refractory hypertension on spironolactone had suggested the drug might be protective enough against hyperkalemia to allow higher and more consistent dosing of BP-lowering agents.

Also in the session: the randomized IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events) trial, with an estimated 5,000 patients with HF in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East; PROMPT-HF, with a projected 1,310 HF patients and billed as a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial of a strategy for improving guideline-directed outpatient medical therapy; and MAVA-LTE, the long-term extension study of an estimated 310 patients who were in the MAVERICK-HCM and EXPLORER-HCM mavacamten trials.
 

Sunday, April 3, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Featured Clinical Research II. Main Tent, Hall D

The arrhythmia-centric session includes PARTITA, with its estimated 590 patients with primary- or secondary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The trial followed them initially for burden of untreated nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or events treated with anti-tachycardia pacing. Then it randomly assigned those who experienced a first appropriate ICD shock to either immediate VT ablation or standard care. The latter included ablation on next occurrence of arrhythmic storm.

Investigational oral factor XIa inhibitors, viewed by many as potentially safer as anticoagulants than contemporary oral inhibitors of factor Xa, are now on the scene and include milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen) and, lately, asundexian (BAY 2433334; Bayer). The latter agent was compared to the factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (Eliquis) in 753 patients with AF in the phase 2 PACIFIC-AF trial, which looked at the newer drug’s safety and optimal dosing.

Also on the bill: a long-term follow-up of the mAFA-2 (Mobile AF Application 2) extension study, which explored the value of a smartphone-based atrial fibrillation (AF) screening app for improving risk of AF-related events; a presentation billed as “Residual Leaks Post Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion”; and one that declares “low rates of guideline-directed care” to be “associated with higher mortality” in patients with pacemakers or ICDs.
 

Monday, April 4, 8:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. LBCT IV

This session is to open with the PROTECT trial, which sought to determine whether perioperative “aggressive warming” may be cardioprotective in patients with CV risk factors undergoing noncardiac surgery. Its estimated 5,100 patients were randomly assigned to a procedure that achieves normothermia, that is 37° C (98.6° F), vs. standard care in which patients’ core temperature may decline to no further than 35.5° C (95.9° F).

Next on the list are a second POISE-3 comparison of BP-control strategies comparing hypotension avoidance vs. hypertension avoidance in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery; the pivotal CLASP 2 TR trial of patients with symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation on optimal medical therapy with vs. without treatment with the Edwards PASCAL Transcatheter Repair System; and one said to provide “insights from the Corevalve US Pivotal and SURTAVI trials” on 5-year incidence, timing, and predictors of hemodynamic valve deterioration transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprostheses.”

Rounding out the block of presentations: the ADAPT-TAVR comparison of the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Lixiana) to dual-antiplatelet therapy for prevention of leaflet thrombosis after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The 235-patient trial was conducted at five centers in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
 

Monday, April 4, 11:00–12:15 p.m. LBCT V

This session includes the FLAVOUR randomized comparison of PCI guided by either FFR or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in 1,700 patients with 40%-70% stenoses. The patients from centers in China and South Korea were followed for death from any cause, MI, or any repeat revascularization at 24 months.

Also scheduled: the 2-year report on 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in the ACC-sponsored quality improvement program GHATI (Global Heart Attack Treatment Initiative); the GIPS-4 myocardial protection study of an estimated 380 patients with STEMI assigned to receive pre- and post-PCI infusions of sodium thiosulfate or placebo, with infarct size at 4 months as the primary endpoint; and a randomized test of an arrhythmia-monitoring implant for influence on clinical outcomes in 802 patients with a history of MI but no pacemaker or ICD indication, called BIO-GUARD-MI,

Last in the session: the Chocolate Touch Study of peripheral-artery angioplasty using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) with a confectionery name that treats lesions not with theobromine, but the antiproliferative mainstay paclitaxel.

The randomized comparison of the Chocolate Touch DCB (TriReme Medical) and the more established Lutonix DCB (Bard) assigned a projected 585 patients with symptomatic peripheral vascular disease to treatment of superficial femoral or popliteal artery lesions with one of the two paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters.
 

Monday, April 4, 12:45–2 p.m. Featured Clinical Research III. Room 143A 

The final session features five subgroup analyses or other updates from trials that have already reported their primary outcomes. Among them is the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, which helped to revitalize hopes for renal denervation therapy as a catheter-based treatment for drug-resistant hypertension by showing significant effects on both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The new data follow the trial’s more than 400 patients out to 3 years.

There is also a symptom and quality-of-life analysis from the 530-patient EMPULSE trial of 530 patients with stabilized acute HF assigned in-hospital to start on empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo. The trial made a splash last year when it reported a significant improvement in risk for death or HF rehospitalization for its patients put on the SGLT2 inhibitor.

A secondary analysis from CANTOS is also featured; the trial had randomly assigned more than 10,000 patients with recent acute MI and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to receive or not receive the anti-inflammatory canakinumab (Ilaris). Those assigned to active therapy showed benefits for a range of outcomes, including CV mortality and stroke, but no decreases in cholesterol levels. Billing for the new CANTOS analysis promises insights on the “differential impact of residual inflammatory risk and residual cholesterol risk among atherosclerosis patients with and without chronic kidney disease.”

The session also features “trends and final results” from the NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) registry, which had shown excellent primary-PCI results without compromise of door-to-balloon times in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; and a FIDELITY analysis of cardiorenal endpoints by history of CV disease in the study’s more than 13,000 patients with diabetes and CKD assigned to placebo or finerenone (Kerendia), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

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

Regardless of the pandemic’s sometimes mercurial behavior, the cardiology community appears set to reclaim valued traditions perhaps taken for granted in the pre-COVID era.

They include the bustling scientific congress and its myriad educational and networking prospects, along with pleiotropic effects like unplanned reunions with colleagues and catching up face-to-face with old friends.

That seems evident in the growing number of registrants for live attendance at at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology, set for this Saturday through Monday in Washington as well as virtually, for a global reach that was unattainable in the pre-COVID era.

Registrations had hit the 11,000 mark and were picking up speed in recent weeks, ACC 2022 cochair Pamela B. Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said at a mid-March presentation to the media.

They had reached about 12,880 and were still climbing a week before the conference, the ACC confirmed to this news organization. By then the professional registration had surpassed 9,900, of whom more than two-thirds reported plans to attend in person.

Dr. Morris said there had been 117 international submissions for what turned out to be 39 coveted spots on the meeting’s Late-Breaking Clinical Trial (LBCT) and Featured Clinical Research agenda spread across eight separate sessions.

On-site participants at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center should head for the Main Tent in Hall D for all LBCT presentations; venues for the Featured Clinical Research sessions are as noted below. Their real-time virtual equivalents will reside on the online platform’s Hot Topics channel. All noted session times are Eastern Daylight Time.
 

Saturday, April 2, 9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/Journal of the American College of Cardiology LBCT (I)

Leading off the conference’s first LBCT session, the randomized VALOR-HCM trial explored whether 16 weeks of mavacamten (MyoKardia) could help patients with severe obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) avoid septal reduction therapy, either surgical or by alcohol ablation.

The 22-center VALOR-HCM trial with an estimated enrollment of 100 follows EXPLORER-HCM, which in 2020 suggested the novel myosin-inhibiting agent could improve symptoms, exercise capacity, cardiac remodeling, and quality of life in such patients.

Simply advising people with heart failure (HF) to consume less salt is one thing, but it’s another to show them clinical trial evidence that it might help keep them out of the hospital. The SODIUM-HF (Study of Dietary Intervention Under 100 mmol in Heart Failure) study, conducted at 27 sites in six countries, sought to provide that evidence.

The trial randomly assigned 1,000 patients with NYHA class 2-3 HF to consume no more than 1,500 mg/day in sodium or to receive standard advice to limit sodium intake, and followed them for a year for the endpoint of death from any cause, cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, or CV emergency department visit.

SODIUM-HF “may provide a rigorous evidence base for sodium restriction in patients with heart failure and may truly change our practice and how we recommend dietary modification,” ACC 2022 vice chair Douglas E. Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at the media presentation.

In the same session, the CHAP (Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy) study explored whether blood pressure (BP) control in pregnant women with new or untreated chronic hypertension could help avert preeclampsia, poor fetal outcomes, and other adverse events.

CHAP assigned about 2,400 women to receive either stepwise antihypertensive therapy to a BP goal of 140/90 mm Hg or lower or no such meds unless their BP reached or exceeded 160/105 mm Hg. Stepwise therapy featured either labetalol or extended-release nifedipine to start, the other agent added as necessary.

The LBCT block also includes the POISE-3 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3) comparison of the hemostatic agent tranexamic acid vs. placebo in nearly 10,000 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. A separate randomization of the same cohort, to be reported at a Monday LBCT session, compared pre- and perioperative BP-control strategies.
 

Saturday, April 2, 12:00 p.m.–1:15 p.m. Featured Clinical Research I. Room 143A

This session features a subgroup analysis by age from the REVERSE-IT trial, which had previously showcased the monoclonal antibody bentracimab (PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals) for its ability to reverse the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor.

REVERSE-IT is accompanied on the schedule by several secondary-endpoint presentations from trials whose primary outcomes have already been presented at meetings or in the journals.

They include the SCORED trial of sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD); COMPLETE, which explored complete revascularization of multivessel coronary disease at primary stenting; and the FAME-3 comparison of coronary bypass surgery (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) readings.

The session is to conclude with EDIT-CMD, which was a small, randomized assessment of diltiazem for improving microvascular dysfunction in patients with chronic angina despite nonobstructive coronary disease.
 

Sunday, April 3, 8:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/Journal of the American Medical Association LBCT (II)

The SuperWIN (Supermarket Web Intervention) study tested an innovative strategy for community-based promotion of healthy lifestyle choices: point-of-purchase dietary education for grocery shoppers with an online instructional component, and follow-up to determine whether it influenced future food choices.

“Dietary interventions are notoriously difficult for us to implement, let alone to study scientifically,” Dr. Drachman observed. “So we think that there may be opportunity for dietary interventions to be best implemented at grocery stores where people are doing their shopping for food.”

SuperWIN compared supermarket shoppers with at least one CV risk factor who participated in the education intervention to a nonintervention control group for any changes in their DASH scores. The scores reflected consistency with the venerable DASH diet based on participants’ food purchases over 3 months.

In the same session, the MITIGATE trial explored whether daily administration of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) might cut the risk of upper respiratory infection (especially from SARS-CoV-2 or seasonal influenza virus) in persons 50 or older with a history of clinical coronary, neurovascular, or peripheral vascular disease or revascularization. The trial has an estimated enrollment of 39,600.

Accompanying SuperWIN and MITIGATE are studies of several dyslipidemia drugs, including the discontinued antisense agent vupanorsen (Pfizer), as tested in TRANSLATE-TIMI 70;  the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab (Praluent), explored for its effects on coronary plaque volume and composition in the PACMAN-AMI trial; and the APOLLO trial, a phase 1 evaluation of SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) that suppresses the molecular machinery in the liver that produces lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a).

The 32-patient APOLLO trial’s recently released top-line results suggested that SLN360 at varying dosages reduced Lp(a) levels by about one-half to more than 90%. Although elevated Lp(a) is known to track with CV risk, it remains to be shown whether dropping Lp(a) levels pharmacologically is protective.
 

Sunday, April 3, 9:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Joint American College of Cardiology/New England Journal of Medicine LBCT (III)

The meeting’s all-HF late-breaker session includes the METEORIC-HF trial, which compared the myotropic agent omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) against placebo for effects on exercise performance over 20 weeks. The trial entered 276 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and reduced peak VO₂.

The GALACTIC-HF trial had previously suggested that the drug improved the risk of HF-related events or CV death in more than 8000 patients with HFrEF, those with the lowest ejection fractions benefiting the most.

This block of trials also features DIAMOND, the latest trial with a gemologic name to look at the potassium sequestrant patiromer (Veltassa) for any protection against hyperkalemia, a familiar side effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors. DIAMOND tested patiromer in 878 patients with HFrEF who were on beta-blockers and other HF-appropriate medications and had a history of drug-associated hyperkalemia.

Previously, the AMBER trial of patients with CKD or refractory hypertension on spironolactone had suggested the drug might be protective enough against hyperkalemia to allow higher and more consistent dosing of BP-lowering agents.

Also in the session: the randomized IVVE (Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events) trial, with an estimated 5,000 patients with HF in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East; PROMPT-HF, with a projected 1,310 HF patients and billed as a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial of a strategy for improving guideline-directed outpatient medical therapy; and MAVA-LTE, the long-term extension study of an estimated 310 patients who were in the MAVERICK-HCM and EXPLORER-HCM mavacamten trials.
 

Sunday, April 3, 12:15–1:30 p.m. Featured Clinical Research II. Main Tent, Hall D

The arrhythmia-centric session includes PARTITA, with its estimated 590 patients with primary- or secondary-prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The trial followed them initially for burden of untreated nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or events treated with anti-tachycardia pacing. Then it randomly assigned those who experienced a first appropriate ICD shock to either immediate VT ablation or standard care. The latter included ablation on next occurrence of arrhythmic storm.

Investigational oral factor XIa inhibitors, viewed by many as potentially safer as anticoagulants than contemporary oral inhibitors of factor Xa, are now on the scene and include milvexian (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Janssen) and, lately, asundexian (BAY 2433334; Bayer). The latter agent was compared to the factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (Eliquis) in 753 patients with AF in the phase 2 PACIFIC-AF trial, which looked at the newer drug’s safety and optimal dosing.

Also on the bill: a long-term follow-up of the mAFA-2 (Mobile AF Application 2) extension study, which explored the value of a smartphone-based atrial fibrillation (AF) screening app for improving risk of AF-related events; a presentation billed as “Residual Leaks Post Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion”; and one that declares “low rates of guideline-directed care” to be “associated with higher mortality” in patients with pacemakers or ICDs.
 

Monday, April 4, 8:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. LBCT IV

This session is to open with the PROTECT trial, which sought to determine whether perioperative “aggressive warming” may be cardioprotective in patients with CV risk factors undergoing noncardiac surgery. Its estimated 5,100 patients were randomly assigned to a procedure that achieves normothermia, that is 37° C (98.6° F), vs. standard care in which patients’ core temperature may decline to no further than 35.5° C (95.9° F).

Next on the list are a second POISE-3 comparison of BP-control strategies comparing hypotension avoidance vs. hypertension avoidance in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery; the pivotal CLASP 2 TR trial of patients with symptomatic tricuspid regurgitation on optimal medical therapy with vs. without treatment with the Edwards PASCAL Transcatheter Repair System; and one said to provide “insights from the Corevalve US Pivotal and SURTAVI trials” on 5-year incidence, timing, and predictors of hemodynamic valve deterioration transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprostheses.”

Rounding out the block of presentations: the ADAPT-TAVR comparison of the factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban (Lixiana) to dual-antiplatelet therapy for prevention of leaflet thrombosis after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The 235-patient trial was conducted at five centers in South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
 

Monday, April 4, 11:00–12:15 p.m. LBCT V

This session includes the FLAVOUR randomized comparison of PCI guided by either FFR or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in 1,700 patients with 40%-70% stenoses. The patients from centers in China and South Korea were followed for death from any cause, MI, or any repeat revascularization at 24 months.

Also scheduled: the 2-year report on 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in the ACC-sponsored quality improvement program GHATI (Global Heart Attack Treatment Initiative); the GIPS-4 myocardial protection study of an estimated 380 patients with STEMI assigned to receive pre- and post-PCI infusions of sodium thiosulfate or placebo, with infarct size at 4 months as the primary endpoint; and a randomized test of an arrhythmia-monitoring implant for influence on clinical outcomes in 802 patients with a history of MI but no pacemaker or ICD indication, called BIO-GUARD-MI,

Last in the session: the Chocolate Touch Study of peripheral-artery angioplasty using a drug-coated balloon (DCB) with a confectionery name that treats lesions not with theobromine, but the antiproliferative mainstay paclitaxel.

The randomized comparison of the Chocolate Touch DCB (TriReme Medical) and the more established Lutonix DCB (Bard) assigned a projected 585 patients with symptomatic peripheral vascular disease to treatment of superficial femoral or popliteal artery lesions with one of the two paclitaxel-coated balloon catheters.
 

Monday, April 4, 12:45–2 p.m. Featured Clinical Research III. Room 143A 

The final session features five subgroup analyses or other updates from trials that have already reported their primary outcomes. Among them is the SPYRAL HTN-ON MED trial, which helped to revitalize hopes for renal denervation therapy as a catheter-based treatment for drug-resistant hypertension by showing significant effects on both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The new data follow the trial’s more than 400 patients out to 3 years.

There is also a symptom and quality-of-life analysis from the 530-patient EMPULSE trial of 530 patients with stabilized acute HF assigned in-hospital to start on empagliflozin (Jardiance) or placebo. The trial made a splash last year when it reported a significant improvement in risk for death or HF rehospitalization for its patients put on the SGLT2 inhibitor.

A secondary analysis from CANTOS is also featured; the trial had randomly assigned more than 10,000 patients with recent acute MI and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to receive or not receive the anti-inflammatory canakinumab (Ilaris). Those assigned to active therapy showed benefits for a range of outcomes, including CV mortality and stroke, but no decreases in cholesterol levels. Billing for the new CANTOS analysis promises insights on the “differential impact of residual inflammatory risk and residual cholesterol risk among atherosclerosis patients with and without chronic kidney disease.”

The session also features “trends and final results” from the NACMI (North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction) registry, which had shown excellent primary-PCI results without compromise of door-to-balloon times in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection; and a FIDELITY analysis of cardiorenal endpoints by history of CV disease in the study’s more than 13,000 patients with diabetes and CKD assigned to placebo or finerenone (Kerendia), a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

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

Jessica Furby struggled with weight most of her life, constantly dieting and exercising to shed pounds. But nothing seemed to help. By her 22nd birthday, she tipped the scales at more than 300 pounds.

So, in 2011, while a college student in Pittsburgh, she decided to have gastric band surgery. Doctors placed a synthetic belt around her stomach to limit what she could eat. It seemed like a good option at the time and, after her surgery, she lost about 60 pounds.

But the benefits didn’t last. In the months that followed, she had pain and other complications. Worst of all, she eventually regained all the weight she’d lost – and then some. By 2016, she weighed 350 pounds and was becoming prediabetic.

That’s when she decided to have the band removed and, on her doctor’s recommendation, had gastric sleeve surgery.

Studies have found the sleeve surgeries carry fewer complications and a much higher success rate than gastric band procedures, which Ms. Furby’s experience has confirmed.

Today, at age 32, she’s down to 288 pounds and says she is on her way to hitting her ultimate goal of 200 pounds.

“The surgery has been a godsend,” she said. “I have not had any complications with it at all. The sleeve was life-changing for me.”

Ms. Furby’s experience has become more common as the risks, complications, and failures of gastric band surgeries have been rising over the past decade.

More band patients are choosing to have conversion surgery to gastric sleeve and gastric bypass. At the same time, fewer doctors are doing gastric band procedures, because of problems like Ms. Furby’s.

According to the latest figures from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, gastric band procedures account for fewer than 1% of the 256,000 bariatric operations done in the United States each year, while gastric sleeves add up to nearly 60%. That makes sleeve surgeries the most commonly performed bariatric operation today.

By comparison, 35% of bariatric surgeries were gastric band procedures in 2011, while sleeve operations accounted for under 18%.

Ms. Furby’s surgeon, Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, said the trend is being driven by many of the things Ms.Furby experienced firsthand.

Dr. Courcoulas, chief of minimally invasive bariatric and general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said there are two main reasons for the decline in gastric band procedures.

“It has been shown to be less effective for weight loss [than] other bariatric surgical procedures, and band intolerance often results in band removal,” she noted.

Gastric sleeve, followed by gastric bypass, are the two most commonly performed operations in the United States and worldwide, she said.

Dr. Courcoulas said the shift from gastric bypass to gastric sleeve procedures “is likely driven by the decline in the band usage, patient preferences for a less invasive operation, such as the sleeve compared to bypass, and surgeon preferences about which operation(s) to offer a given patient.”

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, agrees that gastric band complications and failures, in addition to ineffective weight loss, are behind the trend, driving patients and doctors to choose safer and more effective procedures.

He said the Cleveland Clinic no longer does band operations, and he has done a lot of conversions.

“Around 50%-60% of [gastric band] patients require reoperation to take care of the complications,” he says. “So, when you have a surgery where more than half of the time the patients require reoperation, we cannot claim that’s a safe operation.”
 

Evolution in bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgeries for weight loss date back to the 1950s and 1960s, when surgeons at the University of Minnesota first did experimental bypass operations. Adjustable gastric banding appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But these procedures didn’t gain widespread mainstream use until gastric band procedures gained full Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. Clinical trials have found people who have bariatric surgery have a significantly lower risk of heart disease and other obesity-related health problems.

In the decade that followed the FDA’s approval of gastric band surgery, it became a popular weight loss procedure, accounting for more than a third of all bariatric surgeries by 2011.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago, [gastric] band was the most commonly performed procedure for bariatric surgery worldwide and in the United States,” Dr. Aminian said. “It was very easy to do, it was quick – it takes 20 minutes to do the procedure – recovery was short, and initially patients had great outcomes. They would lose weight and were healthy.”

But over the past decade, surgeons found that patients often regained the weight they’d lost, and complication and failure rates rose.

“Because the [gastric] band is a foreign body that we place inside the body, many patients had complications related to that foreign body,” Dr. Aminian said.

The band can sometimes move or be displaced, causing blockage of the stomach, experts noted. Other common complications include nausea, vomiting, acid reflux, and esophageal issues (such as a hard time swallowing). Some patients feel pain, constant food cravings, or that they can’t eat or drink anything. And painful infections and other problems can develop with the tubing or the port placed under the skin that is connected to the band, which doctors use to make adjustments after surgery.

“Scar tissue can also form around the [gastric] band that can cause a blockage in the stomach,” Dr. Aminian said. “Then if the band is too tight, it can erode into the stomach tissue or even go inside the stomach and cause perforation or bleeding.”

By contrast, gastric sleeve and bypass procedures have been found to be safer, result in longer-lasting weight loss, carry fewer complications, and require fewer patient reoperations. Dr. Aminian estimates that 2%-3% of patients need second operations.

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

Sleeve and bypass procedures offer another critical advantage over band operations: They help reset the body’s metabolism better, changing appetite- and weight-related hormones in the body.

Those hormones can affect food cravings, help people feel full after eating, or boost weight gain in ways that can trump willpower, experts say.

“The [gastric] band doesn’t change the hormones in the body, it’s just a restrictive band around the esophagus or the upper part of the stomach, so it limits the patient’s ability to eat too much,” Dr. Aminian said. “That’s why it doesn’t have the metabolic effects.”

But other procedures, like the gastric sleeve, change the hormones in the body. Removing the source of those hormones means the patient won’t have the same appetite, Dr. Aminian said.

“And that’s why it’s very effective. The problem with the [gastric] band is the patient always has the feeling and desire to eat – they’re always hungry. That’s why in the long run, they fail,” he said.

“They change the setpoints,” Dr. Aminian said. “When the hormones in your body change, the [metabolic] setpoint in the brain also changes.”

He likens the metabolic setpoint to a thermostat in your home that regulates temperature inside.

“When a patient goes on a diet or goes on the [gastric] band, the thermostat doesn’t change,” he says. “They may lose some weight, but they’re going to regain it because the thermostat is the same. But when the hormones in your body change, then the thermostat will change and you’re not going to regain the weight that you have lost.”

Sachin Kukreja, MD, a surgeon and CEO at DFW Bariatrics and General Surgery in Dallas, said he believes these metabolic changes are the biggest things behind successful surgeries.

“People synonymize bariatric surgery with weight loss surgery, but really the metrics we should be using are more related to metabolic measures,” said Dr. Kukreja, who hasn’t done a band surgery since 2013. “And so, the metabolic parameters that change with bariatric surgery are much more significant in the setting with sleeve and gastric sleeve, and much less significant with [gastric] band.”

David Arterburn, MD, agrees that resetting metabolism is important but said the issue is “controversial and challenging” among bariatric surgeons.

“The metabolic setpoint is the idea that we have a biologically controlled set body weight that we will always return to. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone, as some people lose and maintain long-term weight loss,” said Dr. Arterburn, a general internist and bariatric surgery researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
 

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

Bariatric surgeons and patients alike also say that no surgical procedure is a magic-bullet solution for weight loss. Patients who have any type of bariatric surgery must embrace postop lifestyle changes – adopting healthier diets, getting more exercise, cutting out unhealthy habits – to lose weight and maintain weight loss.

Jan Lasecki, 54, a health care specialist in Akron, Ohio, who had band-to-sleeve conversion surgery in 2020, said the postop follow-up was at least as important as the surgery itself in helping her shed pounds.

She said at first, she chose gastric band surgery several years ago because it was “less invasive” than gastric sleeve or bypass. But while she lost about 50 pounds, she regained it after about 6 years and had other complications.

So, 2 years ago, Ms. Lasecki had two surgeries 6 months apart – one to remove her band, and a second to create a gastric sleeve. And the results, she said, have been very successful, in part because of the changes she made after surgery, with the help of her doctor’s staff.

“I have now lost about 90 pounds and have kept if off since surgery,” she says. “I would tell anyone considering any bariatric surgery, it was definitely worth it [and] having the sleeve resulted in greater weight loss.”

The follow-up was key to the success, she said.

The staff “have the tools and support to help you when you tend to fall back on old behaviors and start to regain weight,” Ms. Lasecki said. “They can help you before it gets out of control. I had no issues following either procedure from a surgery perspective.”

Sally and Robert Cordova – who had gastric bypass and sleeve surgeries, respectively, 3 years ago – agreed that the postop lifestyle changes are critical to success.

“When we agreed to have this surgery, we agreed that this will be a lifestyle change for the rest of our lives,” said Sally, 48, an accounting specialist who’s lost 150 pounds – half her body weight – since her surgery. “You can’t just get to your ideal weight and then stop.”

Robert, 47, a federal border control agent whose workmates nicknamed him “Big Rob” when he tipped the scales at 336 pounds, said it’s a mistake to think of the surgery as a “magic-bullet” solution to obesity. There’s more to it than that, he said.

“One of the things I like about the process I’ve taken is, in my opinion, they set you up for success,” he said. “Because it’s not just having the surgery and you’re done; it’s all the classes educating you about all the lifestyle changes you have to do, and starting them before the surgery. The only people that I know personally who haven’t been successful with the surgery are those who haven’t made the lifestyle changes.”

Today, at 230 pounds, Robert says he’s never felt better.

“I feel great,” he says. “I have become more active, obviously doing everything is a lot easier. It got to the point where it was a task to just tying up my shoes!”
 

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

Bariatric surgeons interviewed for this article were reluctant to say that all people who had gastric band procedures should convert to gastric sleeve or bypass. But they made it clear that sleeve and bypass procedures are safer and more effective than gastric band surgery, which is why it is rarely done today.

“If a patient experiences poor weight loss or complications from a band, they can consider conversion/revision to a sleeve or bypass,” said Dr. Courcoulas, echoing the views of other doctors.

“The choice of revision procedure should be based on patient factors, including diabetes and total weight. Converting a band to a sleeve is a technically easier operation, and some studies show that there are fewer complications, compared to conversion to a bypass. These considerations need to be balanced with data that show that both weight loss and metabolic improvements such as diabetes are greater after bypass, compared to sleeve.”

Doctors and experts also say it’s important for patients who are considering a gastric band conversion to gastric sleeve or bypass to understand the differences among these three primary procedures, all endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Here’s a primer, including the pros and cons of each procedure:
 

Gastric band

In gastric band surgery, an adjustable gastric band made of silicone is placed around the top part of the stomach, creating a small pouch above it, to limit the amount of food a person can eat. The size of the opening between the pouch and the stomach can be adjusted with fluid injections through a port placed underneath the skin.

Food goes through the stomach but is limited by the smaller opening of the band.

Advantages:

• Lowest rate of complications right after surgery.
• No division of the stomach or intestines.
• Patients go home on the day of surgery, and recovery is quick.
• The band can be removed, if necessary.

Disadvantages:

• The band may need to be adjusted from time to time, and patients must make monthly office visits during the first year.
• There’s less weight loss than with other surgical procedures.
• It comes with the risk of band movement (slippage) or damage to the stomach over time (erosion).
• The surgery means that a foreign implant has to remain in the body.
• It has a high rate of reoperation.
• The surgery can bring swallowing problems, enlargement of the esophagus, and other complications.

Gastric sleeve

For laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy – often called gastric sleeve – surgeons remove about 80% of the stomach, so the remaining stomach is the size and shape of a banana.

The new, smaller stomach holds less food and liquid, reducing how much food (and how many calories) the patient can get. By removing the portion of the stomach that produces hunger and appetite hormones, the surgery also helps reset the body’s metabolism – decreasing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and allowing the body to reach and maintain a healthy weight as well as control blood sugar.

Advantages:

• It’s technically simple and has a short surgery time.
• It can be done in certain patients with high-risk medical conditions.
• It may be the first step for patients with severe obesity or as a bridge to gastric bypass.
• The surgery brings effective weight loss and improvement of obesity-related conditions (typically 50%-60%, by Mayo Clinic estimates), with a low complication rate (2%-3%).

Disadvantages:

• Nonreversible procedure.
• May worsen or cause new reflux and heartburn.
• Less impact on metabolism, compared to bypass procedures.

Gastric bypass

Gastric bypass, also known as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (French for “in the form of a Y”) is another effective procedure used to treat obesity and obesity-related diseases (done laparoscopically since the 1990s).

For the operation, surgeons divide the stomach into a smaller top portion (pouch) about the size of an egg, then the larger part of the stomach is bypassed and no longer stores or digests food.

The small intestine is divided and connected to the new egg-sized stomach pouch to allow food to pass.

Gastric bypass works by limiting the amount of food and calories a patient can consume. It also decreases hunger and increases fullness, allowing the patient to reach and maintain a healthy weight. The impact on hormones and metabolic health often results in improvement of diabetes and helps patients with reflux.

Advantages:

• Reliable and long-lasting weight loss.
• Effective for remission of obesity-associated conditions.
• Effective weight loss (60%-70%, by Mayo Clinic estimates).

Disadvantages:

• Technically more complex when compared to gastric sleeve or band.
• More vitamin and mineral deficiencies than with gastric sleeve or band.
• Risk for small bowel complications and obstruction, as well as ulcers, especially with NSAID or tobacco use.
• May cause “dumping syndrome,” a feeling of sickness after eating or drinking, especially sweets.

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

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to properly identify a product referenced in the story.

Jessica Furby struggled with weight most of her life, constantly dieting and exercising to shed pounds. But nothing seemed to help. By her 22nd birthday, she tipped the scales at more than 300 pounds.

So, in 2011, while a college student in Pittsburgh, she decided to have gastric band surgery. Doctors placed a synthetic belt around her stomach to limit what she could eat. It seemed like a good option at the time and, after her surgery, she lost about 60 pounds.

But the benefits didn’t last. In the months that followed, she had pain and other complications. Worst of all, she eventually regained all the weight she’d lost – and then some. By 2016, she weighed 350 pounds and was becoming prediabetic.

That’s when she decided to have the band removed and, on her doctor’s recommendation, had gastric sleeve surgery.

Studies have found the sleeve surgeries carry fewer complications and a much higher success rate than gastric band procedures, which Ms. Furby’s experience has confirmed.

Today, at age 32, she’s down to 288 pounds and says she is on her way to hitting her ultimate goal of 200 pounds.

“The surgery has been a godsend,” she said. “I have not had any complications with it at all. The sleeve was life-changing for me.”

Ms. Furby’s experience has become more common as the risks, complications, and failures of gastric band surgeries have been rising over the past decade.

More band patients are choosing to have conversion surgery to gastric sleeve and gastric bypass. At the same time, fewer doctors are doing gastric band procedures, because of problems like Ms. Furby’s.

According to the latest figures from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, gastric band procedures account for fewer than 1% of the 256,000 bariatric operations done in the United States each year, while gastric sleeves add up to nearly 60%. That makes sleeve surgeries the most commonly performed bariatric operation today.

By comparison, 35% of bariatric surgeries were gastric band procedures in 2011, while sleeve operations accounted for under 18%.

Ms. Furby’s surgeon, Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, said the trend is being driven by many of the things Ms.Furby experienced firsthand.

Dr. Courcoulas, chief of minimally invasive bariatric and general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said there are two main reasons for the decline in gastric band procedures.

“It has been shown to be less effective for weight loss [than] other bariatric surgical procedures, and band intolerance often results in band removal,” she noted.

Gastric sleeve, followed by gastric bypass, are the two most commonly performed operations in the United States and worldwide, she said.

Dr. Courcoulas said the shift from gastric bypass to gastric sleeve procedures “is likely driven by the decline in the band usage, patient preferences for a less invasive operation, such as the sleeve compared to bypass, and surgeon preferences about which operation(s) to offer a given patient.”

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, agrees that gastric band complications and failures, in addition to ineffective weight loss, are behind the trend, driving patients and doctors to choose safer and more effective procedures.

He said the Cleveland Clinic no longer does band operations, and he has done a lot of conversions.

“Around 50%-60% of [gastric band] patients require reoperation to take care of the complications,” he says. “So, when you have a surgery where more than half of the time the patients require reoperation, we cannot claim that’s a safe operation.”
 

Evolution in bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgeries for weight loss date back to the 1950s and 1960s, when surgeons at the University of Minnesota first did experimental bypass operations. Adjustable gastric banding appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But these procedures didn’t gain widespread mainstream use until gastric band procedures gained full Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. Clinical trials have found people who have bariatric surgery have a significantly lower risk of heart disease and other obesity-related health problems.

In the decade that followed the FDA’s approval of gastric band surgery, it became a popular weight loss procedure, accounting for more than a third of all bariatric surgeries by 2011.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago, [gastric] band was the most commonly performed procedure for bariatric surgery worldwide and in the United States,” Dr. Aminian said. “It was very easy to do, it was quick – it takes 20 minutes to do the procedure – recovery was short, and initially patients had great outcomes. They would lose weight and were healthy.”

But over the past decade, surgeons found that patients often regained the weight they’d lost, and complication and failure rates rose.

“Because the [gastric] band is a foreign body that we place inside the body, many patients had complications related to that foreign body,” Dr. Aminian said.

The band can sometimes move or be displaced, causing blockage of the stomach, experts noted. Other common complications include nausea, vomiting, acid reflux, and esophageal issues (such as a hard time swallowing). Some patients feel pain, constant food cravings, or that they can’t eat or drink anything. And painful infections and other problems can develop with the tubing or the port placed under the skin that is connected to the band, which doctors use to make adjustments after surgery.

“Scar tissue can also form around the [gastric] band that can cause a blockage in the stomach,” Dr. Aminian said. “Then if the band is too tight, it can erode into the stomach tissue or even go inside the stomach and cause perforation or bleeding.”

By contrast, gastric sleeve and bypass procedures have been found to be safer, result in longer-lasting weight loss, carry fewer complications, and require fewer patient reoperations. Dr. Aminian estimates that 2%-3% of patients need second operations.

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

Sleeve and bypass procedures offer another critical advantage over band operations: They help reset the body’s metabolism better, changing appetite- and weight-related hormones in the body.

Those hormones can affect food cravings, help people feel full after eating, or boost weight gain in ways that can trump willpower, experts say.

“The [gastric] band doesn’t change the hormones in the body, it’s just a restrictive band around the esophagus or the upper part of the stomach, so it limits the patient’s ability to eat too much,” Dr. Aminian said. “That’s why it doesn’t have the metabolic effects.”

But other procedures, like the gastric sleeve, change the hormones in the body. Removing the source of those hormones means the patient won’t have the same appetite, Dr. Aminian said.

“And that’s why it’s very effective. The problem with the [gastric] band is the patient always has the feeling and desire to eat – they’re always hungry. That’s why in the long run, they fail,” he said.

“They change the setpoints,” Dr. Aminian said. “When the hormones in your body change, the [metabolic] setpoint in the brain also changes.”

He likens the metabolic setpoint to a thermostat in your home that regulates temperature inside.

“When a patient goes on a diet or goes on the [gastric] band, the thermostat doesn’t change,” he says. “They may lose some weight, but they’re going to regain it because the thermostat is the same. But when the hormones in your body change, then the thermostat will change and you’re not going to regain the weight that you have lost.”

Sachin Kukreja, MD, a surgeon and CEO at DFW Bariatrics and General Surgery in Dallas, said he believes these metabolic changes are the biggest things behind successful surgeries.

“People synonymize bariatric surgery with weight loss surgery, but really the metrics we should be using are more related to metabolic measures,” said Dr. Kukreja, who hasn’t done a band surgery since 2013. “And so, the metabolic parameters that change with bariatric surgery are much more significant in the setting with sleeve and gastric sleeve, and much less significant with [gastric] band.”

David Arterburn, MD, agrees that resetting metabolism is important but said the issue is “controversial and challenging” among bariatric surgeons.

“The metabolic setpoint is the idea that we have a biologically controlled set body weight that we will always return to. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone, as some people lose and maintain long-term weight loss,” said Dr. Arterburn, a general internist and bariatric surgery researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
 

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

Bariatric surgeons and patients alike also say that no surgical procedure is a magic-bullet solution for weight loss. Patients who have any type of bariatric surgery must embrace postop lifestyle changes – adopting healthier diets, getting more exercise, cutting out unhealthy habits – to lose weight and maintain weight loss.

Jan Lasecki, 54, a health care specialist in Akron, Ohio, who had band-to-sleeve conversion surgery in 2020, said the postop follow-up was at least as important as the surgery itself in helping her shed pounds.

She said at first, she chose gastric band surgery several years ago because it was “less invasive” than gastric sleeve or bypass. But while she lost about 50 pounds, she regained it after about 6 years and had other complications.

So, 2 years ago, Ms. Lasecki had two surgeries 6 months apart – one to remove her band, and a second to create a gastric sleeve. And the results, she said, have been very successful, in part because of the changes she made after surgery, with the help of her doctor’s staff.

“I have now lost about 90 pounds and have kept if off since surgery,” she says. “I would tell anyone considering any bariatric surgery, it was definitely worth it [and] having the sleeve resulted in greater weight loss.”

The follow-up was key to the success, she said.

The staff “have the tools and support to help you when you tend to fall back on old behaviors and start to regain weight,” Ms. Lasecki said. “They can help you before it gets out of control. I had no issues following either procedure from a surgery perspective.”

Sally and Robert Cordova – who had gastric bypass and sleeve surgeries, respectively, 3 years ago – agreed that the postop lifestyle changes are critical to success.

“When we agreed to have this surgery, we agreed that this will be a lifestyle change for the rest of our lives,” said Sally, 48, an accounting specialist who’s lost 150 pounds – half her body weight – since her surgery. “You can’t just get to your ideal weight and then stop.”

Robert, 47, a federal border control agent whose workmates nicknamed him “Big Rob” when he tipped the scales at 336 pounds, said it’s a mistake to think of the surgery as a “magic-bullet” solution to obesity. There’s more to it than that, he said.

“One of the things I like about the process I’ve taken is, in my opinion, they set you up for success,” he said. “Because it’s not just having the surgery and you’re done; it’s all the classes educating you about all the lifestyle changes you have to do, and starting them before the surgery. The only people that I know personally who haven’t been successful with the surgery are those who haven’t made the lifestyle changes.”

Today, at 230 pounds, Robert says he’s never felt better.

“I feel great,” he says. “I have become more active, obviously doing everything is a lot easier. It got to the point where it was a task to just tying up my shoes!”
 

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

Bariatric surgeons interviewed for this article were reluctant to say that all people who had gastric band procedures should convert to gastric sleeve or bypass. But they made it clear that sleeve and bypass procedures are safer and more effective than gastric band surgery, which is why it is rarely done today.

“If a patient experiences poor weight loss or complications from a band, they can consider conversion/revision to a sleeve or bypass,” said Dr. Courcoulas, echoing the views of other doctors.

“The choice of revision procedure should be based on patient factors, including diabetes and total weight. Converting a band to a sleeve is a technically easier operation, and some studies show that there are fewer complications, compared to conversion to a bypass. These considerations need to be balanced with data that show that both weight loss and metabolic improvements such as diabetes are greater after bypass, compared to sleeve.”

Doctors and experts also say it’s important for patients who are considering a gastric band conversion to gastric sleeve or bypass to understand the differences among these three primary procedures, all endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Here’s a primer, including the pros and cons of each procedure:
 

Gastric band

In gastric band surgery, an adjustable gastric band made of silicone is placed around the top part of the stomach, creating a small pouch above it, to limit the amount of food a person can eat. The size of the opening between the pouch and the stomach can be adjusted with fluid injections through a port placed underneath the skin.

Food goes through the stomach but is limited by the smaller opening of the band.

Advantages:

• Lowest rate of complications right after surgery.
• No division of the stomach or intestines.
• Patients go home on the day of surgery, and recovery is quick.
• The band can be removed, if necessary.

Disadvantages:

• The band may need to be adjusted from time to time, and patients must make monthly office visits during the first year.
• There’s less weight loss than with other surgical procedures.
• It comes with the risk of band movement (slippage) or damage to the stomach over time (erosion).
• The surgery means that a foreign implant has to remain in the body.
• It has a high rate of reoperation.
• The surgery can bring swallowing problems, enlargement of the esophagus, and other complications.

Gastric sleeve

For laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy – often called gastric sleeve – surgeons remove about 80% of the stomach, so the remaining stomach is the size and shape of a banana.

The new, smaller stomach holds less food and liquid, reducing how much food (and how many calories) the patient can get. By removing the portion of the stomach that produces hunger and appetite hormones, the surgery also helps reset the body’s metabolism – decreasing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and allowing the body to reach and maintain a healthy weight as well as control blood sugar.

Advantages:

• It’s technically simple and has a short surgery time.
• It can be done in certain patients with high-risk medical conditions.
• It may be the first step for patients with severe obesity or as a bridge to gastric bypass.
• The surgery brings effective weight loss and improvement of obesity-related conditions (typically 50%-60%, by Mayo Clinic estimates), with a low complication rate (2%-3%).

Disadvantages:

• Nonreversible procedure.
• May worsen or cause new reflux and heartburn.
• Less impact on metabolism, compared to bypass procedures.

Gastric bypass

Gastric bypass, also known as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (French for “in the form of a Y”) is another effective procedure used to treat obesity and obesity-related diseases (done laparoscopically since the 1990s).

For the operation, surgeons divide the stomach into a smaller top portion (pouch) about the size of an egg, then the larger part of the stomach is bypassed and no longer stores or digests food.

The small intestine is divided and connected to the new egg-sized stomach pouch to allow food to pass.

Gastric bypass works by limiting the amount of food and calories a patient can consume. It also decreases hunger and increases fullness, allowing the patient to reach and maintain a healthy weight. The impact on hormones and metabolic health often results in improvement of diabetes and helps patients with reflux.

Advantages:

• Reliable and long-lasting weight loss.
• Effective for remission of obesity-associated conditions.
• Effective weight loss (60%-70%, by Mayo Clinic estimates).

Disadvantages:

• Technically more complex when compared to gastric sleeve or band.
• More vitamin and mineral deficiencies than with gastric sleeve or band.
• Risk for small bowel complications and obstruction, as well as ulcers, especially with NSAID or tobacco use.
• May cause “dumping syndrome,” a feeling of sickness after eating or drinking, especially sweets.

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

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to properly identify a product referenced in the story.

Jessica Furby struggled with weight most of her life, constantly dieting and exercising to shed pounds. But nothing seemed to help. By her 22nd birthday, she tipped the scales at more than 300 pounds.

So, in 2011, while a college student in Pittsburgh, she decided to have gastric band surgery. Doctors placed a synthetic belt around her stomach to limit what she could eat. It seemed like a good option at the time and, after her surgery, she lost about 60 pounds.

But the benefits didn’t last. In the months that followed, she had pain and other complications. Worst of all, she eventually regained all the weight she’d lost – and then some. By 2016, she weighed 350 pounds and was becoming prediabetic.

That’s when she decided to have the band removed and, on her doctor’s recommendation, had gastric sleeve surgery.

Studies have found the sleeve surgeries carry fewer complications and a much higher success rate than gastric band procedures, which Ms. Furby’s experience has confirmed.

Today, at age 32, she’s down to 288 pounds and says she is on her way to hitting her ultimate goal of 200 pounds.

“The surgery has been a godsend,” she said. “I have not had any complications with it at all. The sleeve was life-changing for me.”

Ms. Furby’s experience has become more common as the risks, complications, and failures of gastric band surgeries have been rising over the past decade.

More band patients are choosing to have conversion surgery to gastric sleeve and gastric bypass. At the same time, fewer doctors are doing gastric band procedures, because of problems like Ms. Furby’s.

According to the latest figures from the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, gastric band procedures account for fewer than 1% of the 256,000 bariatric operations done in the United States each year, while gastric sleeves add up to nearly 60%. That makes sleeve surgeries the most commonly performed bariatric operation today.

By comparison, 35% of bariatric surgeries were gastric band procedures in 2011, while sleeve operations accounted for under 18%.

Ms. Furby’s surgeon, Anita P. Courcoulas, MD, said the trend is being driven by many of the things Ms.Furby experienced firsthand.

Dr. Courcoulas, chief of minimally invasive bariatric and general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh, said there are two main reasons for the decline in gastric band procedures.

“It has been shown to be less effective for weight loss [than] other bariatric surgical procedures, and band intolerance often results in band removal,” she noted.

Gastric sleeve, followed by gastric bypass, are the two most commonly performed operations in the United States and worldwide, she said.

Dr. Courcoulas said the shift from gastric bypass to gastric sleeve procedures “is likely driven by the decline in the band usage, patient preferences for a less invasive operation, such as the sleeve compared to bypass, and surgeon preferences about which operation(s) to offer a given patient.”

Ali Aminian, MD, director of the Bariatric and Metabolic Institute at the Cleveland Clinic, agrees that gastric band complications and failures, in addition to ineffective weight loss, are behind the trend, driving patients and doctors to choose safer and more effective procedures.

He said the Cleveland Clinic no longer does band operations, and he has done a lot of conversions.

“Around 50%-60% of [gastric band] patients require reoperation to take care of the complications,” he says. “So, when you have a surgery where more than half of the time the patients require reoperation, we cannot claim that’s a safe operation.”
 

Evolution in bariatric surgery

Bariatric surgeries for weight loss date back to the 1950s and 1960s, when surgeons at the University of Minnesota first did experimental bypass operations. Adjustable gastric banding appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

But these procedures didn’t gain widespread mainstream use until gastric band procedures gained full Food and Drug Administration approval in 2001. Clinical trials have found people who have bariatric surgery have a significantly lower risk of heart disease and other obesity-related health problems.

In the decade that followed the FDA’s approval of gastric band surgery, it became a popular weight loss procedure, accounting for more than a third of all bariatric surgeries by 2011.

“Fifteen to 20 years ago, [gastric] band was the most commonly performed procedure for bariatric surgery worldwide and in the United States,” Dr. Aminian said. “It was very easy to do, it was quick – it takes 20 minutes to do the procedure – recovery was short, and initially patients had great outcomes. They would lose weight and were healthy.”

But over the past decade, surgeons found that patients often regained the weight they’d lost, and complication and failure rates rose.

“Because the [gastric] band is a foreign body that we place inside the body, many patients had complications related to that foreign body,” Dr. Aminian said.

The band can sometimes move or be displaced, causing blockage of the stomach, experts noted. Other common complications include nausea, vomiting, acid reflux, and esophageal issues (such as a hard time swallowing). Some patients feel pain, constant food cravings, or that they can’t eat or drink anything. And painful infections and other problems can develop with the tubing or the port placed under the skin that is connected to the band, which doctors use to make adjustments after surgery.

“Scar tissue can also form around the [gastric] band that can cause a blockage in the stomach,” Dr. Aminian said. “Then if the band is too tight, it can erode into the stomach tissue or even go inside the stomach and cause perforation or bleeding.”

By contrast, gastric sleeve and bypass procedures have been found to be safer, result in longer-lasting weight loss, carry fewer complications, and require fewer patient reoperations. Dr. Aminian estimates that 2%-3% of patients need second operations.

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

Sleeve and bypass procedures offer another critical advantage over band operations: They help reset the body’s metabolism better, changing appetite- and weight-related hormones in the body.

Those hormones can affect food cravings, help people feel full after eating, or boost weight gain in ways that can trump willpower, experts say.

“The [gastric] band doesn’t change the hormones in the body, it’s just a restrictive band around the esophagus or the upper part of the stomach, so it limits the patient’s ability to eat too much,” Dr. Aminian said. “That’s why it doesn’t have the metabolic effects.”

But other procedures, like the gastric sleeve, change the hormones in the body. Removing the source of those hormones means the patient won’t have the same appetite, Dr. Aminian said.

“And that’s why it’s very effective. The problem with the [gastric] band is the patient always has the feeling and desire to eat – they’re always hungry. That’s why in the long run, they fail,” he said.

“They change the setpoints,” Dr. Aminian said. “When the hormones in your body change, the [metabolic] setpoint in the brain also changes.”

He likens the metabolic setpoint to a thermostat in your home that regulates temperature inside.

“When a patient goes on a diet or goes on the [gastric] band, the thermostat doesn’t change,” he says. “They may lose some weight, but they’re going to regain it because the thermostat is the same. But when the hormones in your body change, then the thermostat will change and you’re not going to regain the weight that you have lost.”

Sachin Kukreja, MD, a surgeon and CEO at DFW Bariatrics and General Surgery in Dallas, said he believes these metabolic changes are the biggest things behind successful surgeries.

“People synonymize bariatric surgery with weight loss surgery, but really the metrics we should be using are more related to metabolic measures,” said Dr. Kukreja, who hasn’t done a band surgery since 2013. “And so, the metabolic parameters that change with bariatric surgery are much more significant in the setting with sleeve and gastric sleeve, and much less significant with [gastric] band.”

David Arterburn, MD, agrees that resetting metabolism is important but said the issue is “controversial and challenging” among bariatric surgeons.

“The metabolic setpoint is the idea that we have a biologically controlled set body weight that we will always return to. Clearly, this is not the case for everyone, as some people lose and maintain long-term weight loss,” said Dr. Arterburn, a general internist and bariatric surgery researcher at Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle.
 

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

Bariatric surgeons and patients alike also say that no surgical procedure is a magic-bullet solution for weight loss. Patients who have any type of bariatric surgery must embrace postop lifestyle changes – adopting healthier diets, getting more exercise, cutting out unhealthy habits – to lose weight and maintain weight loss.

Jan Lasecki, 54, a health care specialist in Akron, Ohio, who had band-to-sleeve conversion surgery in 2020, said the postop follow-up was at least as important as the surgery itself in helping her shed pounds.

She said at first, she chose gastric band surgery several years ago because it was “less invasive” than gastric sleeve or bypass. But while she lost about 50 pounds, she regained it after about 6 years and had other complications.

So, 2 years ago, Ms. Lasecki had two surgeries 6 months apart – one to remove her band, and a second to create a gastric sleeve. And the results, she said, have been very successful, in part because of the changes she made after surgery, with the help of her doctor’s staff.

“I have now lost about 90 pounds and have kept if off since surgery,” she says. “I would tell anyone considering any bariatric surgery, it was definitely worth it [and] having the sleeve resulted in greater weight loss.”

The follow-up was key to the success, she said.

The staff “have the tools and support to help you when you tend to fall back on old behaviors and start to regain weight,” Ms. Lasecki said. “They can help you before it gets out of control. I had no issues following either procedure from a surgery perspective.”

Sally and Robert Cordova – who had gastric bypass and sleeve surgeries, respectively, 3 years ago – agreed that the postop lifestyle changes are critical to success.

“When we agreed to have this surgery, we agreed that this will be a lifestyle change for the rest of our lives,” said Sally, 48, an accounting specialist who’s lost 150 pounds – half her body weight – since her surgery. “You can’t just get to your ideal weight and then stop.”

Robert, 47, a federal border control agent whose workmates nicknamed him “Big Rob” when he tipped the scales at 336 pounds, said it’s a mistake to think of the surgery as a “magic-bullet” solution to obesity. There’s more to it than that, he said.

“One of the things I like about the process I’ve taken is, in my opinion, they set you up for success,” he said. “Because it’s not just having the surgery and you’re done; it’s all the classes educating you about all the lifestyle changes you have to do, and starting them before the surgery. The only people that I know personally who haven’t been successful with the surgery are those who haven’t made the lifestyle changes.”

Today, at 230 pounds, Robert says he’s never felt better.

“I feel great,” he says. “I have become more active, obviously doing everything is a lot easier. It got to the point where it was a task to just tying up my shoes!”
 

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

Bariatric surgeons interviewed for this article were reluctant to say that all people who had gastric band procedures should convert to gastric sleeve or bypass. But they made it clear that sleeve and bypass procedures are safer and more effective than gastric band surgery, which is why it is rarely done today.

“If a patient experiences poor weight loss or complications from a band, they can consider conversion/revision to a sleeve or bypass,” said Dr. Courcoulas, echoing the views of other doctors.

“The choice of revision procedure should be based on patient factors, including diabetes and total weight. Converting a band to a sleeve is a technically easier operation, and some studies show that there are fewer complications, compared to conversion to a bypass. These considerations need to be balanced with data that show that both weight loss and metabolic improvements such as diabetes are greater after bypass, compared to sleeve.”

Doctors and experts also say it’s important for patients who are considering a gastric band conversion to gastric sleeve or bypass to understand the differences among these three primary procedures, all endorsed by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

Here’s a primer, including the pros and cons of each procedure:
 

Gastric band

In gastric band surgery, an adjustable gastric band made of silicone is placed around the top part of the stomach, creating a small pouch above it, to limit the amount of food a person can eat. The size of the opening between the pouch and the stomach can be adjusted with fluid injections through a port placed underneath the skin.

Food goes through the stomach but is limited by the smaller opening of the band.

Advantages:

• Lowest rate of complications right after surgery.
• No division of the stomach or intestines.
• Patients go home on the day of surgery, and recovery is quick.
• The band can be removed, if necessary.

Disadvantages:

• The band may need to be adjusted from time to time, and patients must make monthly office visits during the first year.
• There’s less weight loss than with other surgical procedures.
• It comes with the risk of band movement (slippage) or damage to the stomach over time (erosion).
• The surgery means that a foreign implant has to remain in the body.
• It has a high rate of reoperation.
• The surgery can bring swallowing problems, enlargement of the esophagus, and other complications.

Gastric sleeve

For laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy – often called gastric sleeve – surgeons remove about 80% of the stomach, so the remaining stomach is the size and shape of a banana.

The new, smaller stomach holds less food and liquid, reducing how much food (and how many calories) the patient can get. By removing the portion of the stomach that produces hunger and appetite hormones, the surgery also helps reset the body’s metabolism – decreasing hunger, increasing feelings of fullness, and allowing the body to reach and maintain a healthy weight as well as control blood sugar.

Advantages:

• It’s technically simple and has a short surgery time.
• It can be done in certain patients with high-risk medical conditions.
• It may be the first step for patients with severe obesity or as a bridge to gastric bypass.
• The surgery brings effective weight loss and improvement of obesity-related conditions (typically 50%-60%, by Mayo Clinic estimates), with a low complication rate (2%-3%).

Disadvantages:

• Nonreversible procedure.
• May worsen or cause new reflux and heartburn.
• Less impact on metabolism, compared to bypass procedures.

Gastric bypass

Gastric bypass, also known as the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (French for “in the form of a Y”) is another effective procedure used to treat obesity and obesity-related diseases (done laparoscopically since the 1990s).

For the operation, surgeons divide the stomach into a smaller top portion (pouch) about the size of an egg, then the larger part of the stomach is bypassed and no longer stores or digests food.

The small intestine is divided and connected to the new egg-sized stomach pouch to allow food to pass.

Gastric bypass works by limiting the amount of food and calories a patient can consume. It also decreases hunger and increases fullness, allowing the patient to reach and maintain a healthy weight. The impact on hormones and metabolic health often results in improvement of diabetes and helps patients with reflux.

Advantages:

• Reliable and long-lasting weight loss.
• Effective for remission of obesity-associated conditions.
• Effective weight loss (60%-70%, by Mayo Clinic estimates).

Disadvantages:

• Technically more complex when compared to gastric sleeve or band.
• More vitamin and mineral deficiencies than with gastric sleeve or band.
• Risk for small bowel complications and obstruction, as well as ulcers, especially with NSAID or tobacco use.
• May cause “dumping syndrome,” a feeling of sickness after eating or drinking, especially sweets.

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

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to properly identify a product referenced in the story.