Guidelines

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.

The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.

The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.

“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.

The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
 

Some more vulnerable than others

The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.

The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.

They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.

“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.

“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.

The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”

The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.

This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a Clinical Care Pathway for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Recommendations are intended for a spectrum of clinical settings, including primary care, obesity medicine, gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology practices, reported lead author Fasiha Kanwal, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues.

“Most patients with NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are seen in primary care or endocrine clinics,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Although not all patients with NAFLD/NASH require secondary (i.e., hepatology) care, not knowing which patients might benefit from such care and when to refer them results in inconsistent care processes and possibly poor outcomes. Clinical Care Pathways, with careful explication of each step in screening, diagnosis, and treatment, have been shown to improve the quality of health care delivery in other areas of medicine, [and] are crucial to addressing the often inconsistent care processes characterizing current approaches to NAFLD/NASH.”

The guidance was drafted by a group of 15 multidisciplinary experts from around the world representing the AGA, the American Diabetes Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the Obesity Society, and the Endocrine Society. Recommendations were based on available literature and clinical experience.

The authors recommended a four-step screening process for NAFLD/NASH: Check for risk factors predicting clinically relevant fibrosis (stage F2 or higher), review history and perform relevant laboratory tests, conduct noninvasive liver fibrosis testing, and measure liver stiffness.

Patients at greatest risk for clinically significant fibrosis include those with two or more metabolic risk factors, those with type 2 diabetes, and those with incidentally detected steatosis and/or elevated aminotransferases.

“A recent retrospective cohort study found that patients with hepatic steatosis and elevated alanine aminotransferase had a significantly higher risk of progression to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma than patients with hepatic steatosis and persistently normal alanine aminotransferase,” the authors noted.

When any of the above risk factors are present, the authors recommended checking the patient’s history for excessive alcohol intake, conducting a complete blood count and liver function tests, and screening for other hepatic and biliary diseases, such as chronic hepatitis C virus infection and liver mass lesions.

If other liver diseases have been ruled out, the first step in liver fibrosis risk stratification involves noninvasive testing, with the authors favoring the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score “because it has been shown to have the best diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis, compared with other noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.”

The next step in risk stratification involves liver stiffness measurement (LSM) with FibroScan (vibration controlled transient elastography [VCTE]), or newer modalities, such as bidimensional shear wave elastography or point shear wave elastography, which offer “diagnostic performances at least as good as VCTE.”

According to the publication, patients with NAFLD at low risk of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 less than 1.3 or LSM less than 8 kPa or liver biopsy F0-F1) can be managed by one provider, such as a primary care provider or endocrinologist, whereas indeterminate-risk patients (FIB-4 of 1.3-2.67 and/or LSM 8-12 kPa and liver biopsy unavailable) and high-risk patients (FIB-4 greater than 2.67 or LSM greater than 12 kPa or liver biopsy F2-F4) should be managed by a multidisciplinary team led by a hepatologist.

Lifestyle intervention, weight loss (if overweight or obese), and cardiovascular disease risk reduction are advised for patients of all risk categories.

“There are no large, long-term behavioral modification or pharmacotherapy studies regarding weight loss in individuals with NAFLD,” the authors wrote. “However, weight loss of any magnitude should be encouraged as beneficial.”

For patients with indeterminate and high risk, NASH pharmacotherapy is recommended, and if needed, diabetes care should involve medications with efficacy in NASH, such as pioglitazone.

“Although we recognize that knowledge is continuing to evolve and that recommendations may change accordingly over time, we believe this Pathway provides accessible, standardized, evidence-based, timely, and testable recommendations that will allow clinicians to care for a rapidly growing population of patients, most of whom are managed in primary care or endocrine clinics,” the authors concluded.

The article was supported by the American Gastroenterological Association, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and others. The authors disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a Clinical Care Pathway for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Recommendations are intended for a spectrum of clinical settings, including primary care, obesity medicine, gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology practices, reported lead author Fasiha Kanwal, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues.

“Most patients with NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are seen in primary care or endocrine clinics,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Although not all patients with NAFLD/NASH require secondary (i.e., hepatology) care, not knowing which patients might benefit from such care and when to refer them results in inconsistent care processes and possibly poor outcomes. Clinical Care Pathways, with careful explication of each step in screening, diagnosis, and treatment, have been shown to improve the quality of health care delivery in other areas of medicine, [and] are crucial to addressing the often inconsistent care processes characterizing current approaches to NAFLD/NASH.”

The guidance was drafted by a group of 15 multidisciplinary experts from around the world representing the AGA, the American Diabetes Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the Obesity Society, and the Endocrine Society. Recommendations were based on available literature and clinical experience.

The authors recommended a four-step screening process for NAFLD/NASH: Check for risk factors predicting clinically relevant fibrosis (stage F2 or higher), review history and perform relevant laboratory tests, conduct noninvasive liver fibrosis testing, and measure liver stiffness.

Patients at greatest risk for clinically significant fibrosis include those with two or more metabolic risk factors, those with type 2 diabetes, and those with incidentally detected steatosis and/or elevated aminotransferases.

“A recent retrospective cohort study found that patients with hepatic steatosis and elevated alanine aminotransferase had a significantly higher risk of progression to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma than patients with hepatic steatosis and persistently normal alanine aminotransferase,” the authors noted.

When any of the above risk factors are present, the authors recommended checking the patient’s history for excessive alcohol intake, conducting a complete blood count and liver function tests, and screening for other hepatic and biliary diseases, such as chronic hepatitis C virus infection and liver mass lesions.

If other liver diseases have been ruled out, the first step in liver fibrosis risk stratification involves noninvasive testing, with the authors favoring the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score “because it has been shown to have the best diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis, compared with other noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.”

The next step in risk stratification involves liver stiffness measurement (LSM) with FibroScan (vibration controlled transient elastography [VCTE]), or newer modalities, such as bidimensional shear wave elastography or point shear wave elastography, which offer “diagnostic performances at least as good as VCTE.”

According to the publication, patients with NAFLD at low risk of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 less than 1.3 or LSM less than 8 kPa or liver biopsy F0-F1) can be managed by one provider, such as a primary care provider or endocrinologist, whereas indeterminate-risk patients (FIB-4 of 1.3-2.67 and/or LSM 8-12 kPa and liver biopsy unavailable) and high-risk patients (FIB-4 greater than 2.67 or LSM greater than 12 kPa or liver biopsy F2-F4) should be managed by a multidisciplinary team led by a hepatologist.

Lifestyle intervention, weight loss (if overweight or obese), and cardiovascular disease risk reduction are advised for patients of all risk categories.

“There are no large, long-term behavioral modification or pharmacotherapy studies regarding weight loss in individuals with NAFLD,” the authors wrote. “However, weight loss of any magnitude should be encouraged as beneficial.”

For patients with indeterminate and high risk, NASH pharmacotherapy is recommended, and if needed, diabetes care should involve medications with efficacy in NASH, such as pioglitazone.

“Although we recognize that knowledge is continuing to evolve and that recommendations may change accordingly over time, we believe this Pathway provides accessible, standardized, evidence-based, timely, and testable recommendations that will allow clinicians to care for a rapidly growing population of patients, most of whom are managed in primary care or endocrine clinics,” the authors concluded.

The article was supported by the American Gastroenterological Association, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and others. The authors disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a Clinical Care Pathway for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

Recommendations are intended for a spectrum of clinical settings, including primary care, obesity medicine, gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology practices, reported lead author Fasiha Kanwal, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues.

“Most patients with NAFLD and NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis] are seen in primary care or endocrine clinics,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “Although not all patients with NAFLD/NASH require secondary (i.e., hepatology) care, not knowing which patients might benefit from such care and when to refer them results in inconsistent care processes and possibly poor outcomes. Clinical Care Pathways, with careful explication of each step in screening, diagnosis, and treatment, have been shown to improve the quality of health care delivery in other areas of medicine, [and] are crucial to addressing the often inconsistent care processes characterizing current approaches to NAFLD/NASH.”

The guidance was drafted by a group of 15 multidisciplinary experts from around the world representing the AGA, the American Diabetes Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the Obesity Society, and the Endocrine Society. Recommendations were based on available literature and clinical experience.

The authors recommended a four-step screening process for NAFLD/NASH: Check for risk factors predicting clinically relevant fibrosis (stage F2 or higher), review history and perform relevant laboratory tests, conduct noninvasive liver fibrosis testing, and measure liver stiffness.

Patients at greatest risk for clinically significant fibrosis include those with two or more metabolic risk factors, those with type 2 diabetes, and those with incidentally detected steatosis and/or elevated aminotransferases.

“A recent retrospective cohort study found that patients with hepatic steatosis and elevated alanine aminotransferase had a significantly higher risk of progression to cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma than patients with hepatic steatosis and persistently normal alanine aminotransferase,” the authors noted.

When any of the above risk factors are present, the authors recommended checking the patient’s history for excessive alcohol intake, conducting a complete blood count and liver function tests, and screening for other hepatic and biliary diseases, such as chronic hepatitis C virus infection and liver mass lesions.

If other liver diseases have been ruled out, the first step in liver fibrosis risk stratification involves noninvasive testing, with the authors favoring the Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) score “because it has been shown to have the best diagnostic accuracy for advanced fibrosis, compared with other noninvasive markers of fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.”

The next step in risk stratification involves liver stiffness measurement (LSM) with FibroScan (vibration controlled transient elastography [VCTE]), or newer modalities, such as bidimensional shear wave elastography or point shear wave elastography, which offer “diagnostic performances at least as good as VCTE.”

According to the publication, patients with NAFLD at low risk of advanced fibrosis (FIB-4 less than 1.3 or LSM less than 8 kPa or liver biopsy F0-F1) can be managed by one provider, such as a primary care provider or endocrinologist, whereas indeterminate-risk patients (FIB-4 of 1.3-2.67 and/or LSM 8-12 kPa and liver biopsy unavailable) and high-risk patients (FIB-4 greater than 2.67 or LSM greater than 12 kPa or liver biopsy F2-F4) should be managed by a multidisciplinary team led by a hepatologist.

Lifestyle intervention, weight loss (if overweight or obese), and cardiovascular disease risk reduction are advised for patients of all risk categories.

“There are no large, long-term behavioral modification or pharmacotherapy studies regarding weight loss in individuals with NAFLD,” the authors wrote. “However, weight loss of any magnitude should be encouraged as beneficial.”

For patients with indeterminate and high risk, NASH pharmacotherapy is recommended, and if needed, diabetes care should involve medications with efficacy in NASH, such as pioglitazone.

“Although we recognize that knowledge is continuing to evolve and that recommendations may change accordingly over time, we believe this Pathway provides accessible, standardized, evidence-based, timely, and testable recommendations that will allow clinicians to care for a rapidly growing population of patients, most of whom are managed in primary care or endocrine clinics,” the authors concluded.

The article was supported by the American Gastroenterological Association, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and others. The authors disclosed relationships with Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and others.

An American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update for gastrointestinal pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, emphasizes patient-physician collaboration and improvement of patient understanding of the pathways and mechanisms of pain sensations. It is aimed at management of patients in whom pain persists after first-line therapies fail to resolve visceral causes of pain.

DGBIs include irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome, according to Laurie Keefer, PhD, AGAF, of the division of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. Initial treatment usually focuses on visceral triggers of pain such as food and bowel movements, but this approach is ineffective for many.

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors can impact the treatment of these patients, making it a complex clinical problem that calls for a collaborative approach between the patient and clinician. Opioids and other drugs that could be misused should be avoided, according to the authors. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches can be considered, but the update did not address use of marijuana or other complementary or alternative therapies.

Effective management requires empathy and collaboration. The patient has often seen various other clinicians with suboptimal results, which has left them dissatisfied with their care. Cultural sensitivity is crucial because the understanding and interpretation of pain, and preferred management approaches, vary across cultures.

The first step is a nonjudgmental patient history using open-ended questions. Examples include: “How do your symptoms interfere with your ability to do what you want in your daily life?” or “How are these symptoms impacting your life the most?” These types of questions may identify patients who could benefit from behavioral health interventions.

Questions about symptom-related anxiety can improve understanding of patient concerns and offer an opportunity to address fears. Additional understanding of the patient’s perspective can come from questions like: “What do you think is causing your symptoms,” “Why are you coming to see me now?” and “What are you most concerned about with your symptoms?”

The initial assessment should ideally result in shared goals and expectations for pain management.

Providers should educate the patient about the pathogenesis of pain and how it can be modified. Pain signals can result from innocuous signals from the gut that are misinterpreted by the vigilant brain as it scans for injury or illness. That model might explain why some patients with similar diagnoses have widely differing pain experiences, and offers hope that a change in how one approaches pain might lead to improvements. Patients should be encouraged to avoid too much focus on the cause or a solution to pain, because it can interfere with acceptance of pain or, when needed, treatment.

Opioids should not be prescribed for these patients, and if they are already taking them on referral, it’s important to manage them within a multidisciplinary framework until the opioids can be discontinued. Long-term use of opioids can lead to narcotic bowel syndrome, which results in chronic and often heightened abdominal pain even with escalating opioid doses. Opioid stoppage often must be accompanied by behavioral and psychiatric therapies to ensure success.

Nonpharmacological therapies such as brain-gut psychotherapies should be brought up as potential options early in treatment, even though many patients won’t require this type of care. Early mention is likely to keep the patient more open to trying them because they’re less likely to think of it as a sign of failure or a “last-ditch” approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy works to improve pain management skills and bolster skill deficits, with attention to pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and visceral anxiety through different techniques.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy deals with somatic awareness and the use of imagery and suggestion to reduce pain sensations. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to be effective in inflammatory bowel disease and musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The provider should be familiar with these available methods, but should leave choice of interventions to partner mental health providers.

It’s important to distinguish between gastrointestinal pain with visceral causes and centrally mediated pain. Central sensitization can cause intermittent pain to become persistent even in the absence of ongoing peripheral causes of pain.

Peripheral acting agents affect gastrointestinal pain, and a network meta-analysis identified the top three drugs for pain relief in irritable bowel syndrome as tricyclic antidepressants, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil.

Neuromodulator drugs are an option for DGBI pain because the gut nervous system shares embryonic developmental pathways with the brain and spinal cord, which helps explains some of the benefits of low-dose antidepressants, now termed gut-brain neuromodulators. These drugs should be started at a low dose and gradually titrated according to symptom response and tolerability.

The authors have financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

An American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update for gastrointestinal pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, emphasizes patient-physician collaboration and improvement of patient understanding of the pathways and mechanisms of pain sensations. It is aimed at management of patients in whom pain persists after first-line therapies fail to resolve visceral causes of pain.

DGBIs include irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome, according to Laurie Keefer, PhD, AGAF, of the division of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. Initial treatment usually focuses on visceral triggers of pain such as food and bowel movements, but this approach is ineffective for many.

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors can impact the treatment of these patients, making it a complex clinical problem that calls for a collaborative approach between the patient and clinician. Opioids and other drugs that could be misused should be avoided, according to the authors. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches can be considered, but the update did not address use of marijuana or other complementary or alternative therapies.

Effective management requires empathy and collaboration. The patient has often seen various other clinicians with suboptimal results, which has left them dissatisfied with their care. Cultural sensitivity is crucial because the understanding and interpretation of pain, and preferred management approaches, vary across cultures.

The first step is a nonjudgmental patient history using open-ended questions. Examples include: “How do your symptoms interfere with your ability to do what you want in your daily life?” or “How are these symptoms impacting your life the most?” These types of questions may identify patients who could benefit from behavioral health interventions.

Questions about symptom-related anxiety can improve understanding of patient concerns and offer an opportunity to address fears. Additional understanding of the patient’s perspective can come from questions like: “What do you think is causing your symptoms,” “Why are you coming to see me now?” and “What are you most concerned about with your symptoms?”

The initial assessment should ideally result in shared goals and expectations for pain management.

Providers should educate the patient about the pathogenesis of pain and how it can be modified. Pain signals can result from innocuous signals from the gut that are misinterpreted by the vigilant brain as it scans for injury or illness. That model might explain why some patients with similar diagnoses have widely differing pain experiences, and offers hope that a change in how one approaches pain might lead to improvements. Patients should be encouraged to avoid too much focus on the cause or a solution to pain, because it can interfere with acceptance of pain or, when needed, treatment.

Opioids should not be prescribed for these patients, and if they are already taking them on referral, it’s important to manage them within a multidisciplinary framework until the opioids can be discontinued. Long-term use of opioids can lead to narcotic bowel syndrome, which results in chronic and often heightened abdominal pain even with escalating opioid doses. Opioid stoppage often must be accompanied by behavioral and psychiatric therapies to ensure success.

Nonpharmacological therapies such as brain-gut psychotherapies should be brought up as potential options early in treatment, even though many patients won’t require this type of care. Early mention is likely to keep the patient more open to trying them because they’re less likely to think of it as a sign of failure or a “last-ditch” approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy works to improve pain management skills and bolster skill deficits, with attention to pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and visceral anxiety through different techniques.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy deals with somatic awareness and the use of imagery and suggestion to reduce pain sensations. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to be effective in inflammatory bowel disease and musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The provider should be familiar with these available methods, but should leave choice of interventions to partner mental health providers.

It’s important to distinguish between gastrointestinal pain with visceral causes and centrally mediated pain. Central sensitization can cause intermittent pain to become persistent even in the absence of ongoing peripheral causes of pain.

Peripheral acting agents affect gastrointestinal pain, and a network meta-analysis identified the top three drugs for pain relief in irritable bowel syndrome as tricyclic antidepressants, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil.

Neuromodulator drugs are an option for DGBI pain because the gut nervous system shares embryonic developmental pathways with the brain and spinal cord, which helps explains some of the benefits of low-dose antidepressants, now termed gut-brain neuromodulators. These drugs should be started at a low dose and gradually titrated according to symptom response and tolerability.

The authors have financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

An American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update for gastrointestinal pain in disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI), published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, emphasizes patient-physician collaboration and improvement of patient understanding of the pathways and mechanisms of pain sensations. It is aimed at management of patients in whom pain persists after first-line therapies fail to resolve visceral causes of pain.

DGBIs include irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, and centrally mediated abdominal pain syndrome, according to Laurie Keefer, PhD, AGAF, of the division of gastroenterology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. Initial treatment usually focuses on visceral triggers of pain such as food and bowel movements, but this approach is ineffective for many.

Cognitive, affective, and behavioral factors can impact the treatment of these patients, making it a complex clinical problem that calls for a collaborative approach between the patient and clinician. Opioids and other drugs that could be misused should be avoided, according to the authors. Both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches can be considered, but the update did not address use of marijuana or other complementary or alternative therapies.

Effective management requires empathy and collaboration. The patient has often seen various other clinicians with suboptimal results, which has left them dissatisfied with their care. Cultural sensitivity is crucial because the understanding and interpretation of pain, and preferred management approaches, vary across cultures.

The first step is a nonjudgmental patient history using open-ended questions. Examples include: “How do your symptoms interfere with your ability to do what you want in your daily life?” or “How are these symptoms impacting your life the most?” These types of questions may identify patients who could benefit from behavioral health interventions.

Questions about symptom-related anxiety can improve understanding of patient concerns and offer an opportunity to address fears. Additional understanding of the patient’s perspective can come from questions like: “What do you think is causing your symptoms,” “Why are you coming to see me now?” and “What are you most concerned about with your symptoms?”

The initial assessment should ideally result in shared goals and expectations for pain management.

Providers should educate the patient about the pathogenesis of pain and how it can be modified. Pain signals can result from innocuous signals from the gut that are misinterpreted by the vigilant brain as it scans for injury or illness. That model might explain why some patients with similar diagnoses have widely differing pain experiences, and offers hope that a change in how one approaches pain might lead to improvements. Patients should be encouraged to avoid too much focus on the cause or a solution to pain, because it can interfere with acceptance of pain or, when needed, treatment.

Opioids should not be prescribed for these patients, and if they are already taking them on referral, it’s important to manage them within a multidisciplinary framework until the opioids can be discontinued. Long-term use of opioids can lead to narcotic bowel syndrome, which results in chronic and often heightened abdominal pain even with escalating opioid doses. Opioid stoppage often must be accompanied by behavioral and psychiatric therapies to ensure success.

Nonpharmacological therapies such as brain-gut psychotherapies should be brought up as potential options early in treatment, even though many patients won’t require this type of care. Early mention is likely to keep the patient more open to trying them because they’re less likely to think of it as a sign of failure or a “last-ditch” approach. Cognitive-behavioral therapy works to improve pain management skills and bolster skill deficits, with attention to pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and visceral anxiety through different techniques.

Gut-directed hypnotherapy deals with somatic awareness and the use of imagery and suggestion to reduce pain sensations. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to be effective in inflammatory bowel disease and musculoskeletal pain syndromes. The provider should be familiar with these available methods, but should leave choice of interventions to partner mental health providers.

It’s important to distinguish between gastrointestinal pain with visceral causes and centrally mediated pain. Central sensitization can cause intermittent pain to become persistent even in the absence of ongoing peripheral causes of pain.

Peripheral acting agents affect gastrointestinal pain, and a network meta-analysis identified the top three drugs for pain relief in irritable bowel syndrome as tricyclic antidepressants, antispasmodics, and peppermint oil.

Neuromodulator drugs are an option for DGBI pain because the gut nervous system shares embryonic developmental pathways with the brain and spinal cord, which helps explains some of the benefits of low-dose antidepressants, now termed gut-brain neuromodulators. These drugs should be started at a low dose and gradually titrated according to symptom response and tolerability.

The authors have financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

In a new scientific statement on diet and lifestyle recommendations, the American Heart Association is highlighting, for the first time, structural challenges that impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns.

American Heart Association

This is in addition to stressing aspects of diet that improve cardiovascular health and reduce cardiovascular risk, with an emphasis on dietary patterns and food-based guidance beyond naming individual foods or nutrients.

The 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health scientific statement, developed under Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, chair of the AHA writing group, provides 10 evidence-based guidance recommendations to promote cardiometabolic health.

“The way to make heart-healthy choices every day,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, in a statement, “is to step back, look at the environment in which you eat, whether it be at home, at work, during social interaction, and then identify what the best choices are. And if there are no good choices, then think about how you can modify your environment so that there are good choices.”

The statement, published in Circulation, underscores growing evidence that nutrition-related chronic diseases have maternal-nutritional origins, and that prevention of pediatric obesity is a key to preserving and prolonging ideal cardiovascular health.

The features are as follows:

• Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. To counter the shift toward higher energy intake and more sedentary lifestyles over the past 3 decades, the statement recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, adjusted for individual’s age, activity level, sex, and size.
• Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables; choose a wide variety. Observational and intervention studies document that dietary patterns rich in varied fruits and vegetables, with the exception of white potatoes, are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Also, whole fruits and vegetables, which more readily provide fiber and satiety, are preferred over juices.
• Choose whole grain foods and products made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains. Evidence from observational, interventional, and clinical studies confirm the benefits of frequent consumption of whole grains over infrequent consumption or over refined grains in terms of CVD risk, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic risk factors, laxation, and gut microbiota.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants (legumes and nuts).
• Higher intake of legumes, which are rich in protein and fiber, is associated with lower CVD risk, while higher nut intake is associated with lower risks of CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality/incidence. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-source whole foods, beyond health benefits, lowers the diet’s carbon footprint. Meat alternatives are often ultraprocessed and evidence on their short- and long-term health effects is limited. Unsaturated fats are preferred, as are lean, nonprocessed meats.
• Use liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel), animal fats (butter and lard), and partially hydrogenated fats. Saturated and trans fats (animal and dairy fats, and partially hydrogenated fat) should be replaced with nontropical liquid plant oils. Evidence supports cardiovascular benefits of dietary unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats primarily from plant oils (e.g. soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, walnuts, and flax seeds).
• Choose minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods. Because of their proven association with adverse health outcomes, including overweight and obesity, cardiometabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes, CVD), and all-cause mortality, the consumption of many ultraprocessed foods is of concern. Ultraprocessed foods include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. A general principle is to emphasize unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
• Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars. Added sugars (commonly glucose, dextrose, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, and concentrated fruit juice) are tied to elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and excess body weight. Findings from meta-analyses on body weight and metabolic outcomes for replacing added sugars with low-energy sweeteners are mixed, and the possibility of reverse causality has been raised.
• Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. In general, the effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure tend to be higher in Black people, middle-aged and older people, and those with hypertension. In the United States, the main combined sources of sodium intake are processed foods, those prepared outside the home, packaged foods, and restaurant foods. Potassium-enriched salts are a promising alternative.
• If you don’t drink alcohol, don’t start; if you choose to drink, limit intake.
• While relationships between alcohol intake and cardiovascular outcomes are complex, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently concluded that those who do drink should consume no more than one drink per day and should not drink alcohol in binges; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans con­tinues to recommend no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
• Adhere to the guidance regardless in all settings. Food-based dietary guidance applies to all foods and beverages, regardless of where prepared, procured, and consumed. Policies should be enacted that encourage healthier default options (for example, whole grains, minimized sodium and sugar content).

Recognizing impediments

The AHA/ASA scientific statement closes with the declaration: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.” It points to the National Institutes of Health’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for National Institutes of Health Nutrition Research, which focuses on precision nutrition as a means “to determine the impact on health of not only what individuals eat, but also of why, when, and how they eat throughout the life course.”

Ultimately, precision nutrition may provide personalized diets for CVD prevention. But the “food environment,” often conditioned by “rampant nutrition misinformation” through local, state, and federal practices and policies, may impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns. Factors such as targeted food marketing (for example, of processed food and beverages in minority neighborhoods), structural racism, neighborhood segregation, unhealthy built environments, and food insecurity create environments in which unhealthy foods are the default option.”

These factors compound adverse dietary and health effects, and underscore a need to “directly combat nutrition misinformation among the public and health care professionals.” They also explain why, despite widespread knowledge of heart-healthy dietary pattern components, little progress has been made in achieving dietary goals in the United States.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s office, in response to a request regarding AHA advocacy and consumer programs, provided the following links: Voices for Healthy Kids initiative site and choosing healthier processed foods and one on fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Lichtenstein had no disclosures. Disclosures for the writing group members are included in the statement.

In a new scientific statement on diet and lifestyle recommendations, the American Heart Association is highlighting, for the first time, structural challenges that impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns.

American Heart Association

This is in addition to stressing aspects of diet that improve cardiovascular health and reduce cardiovascular risk, with an emphasis on dietary patterns and food-based guidance beyond naming individual foods or nutrients.

The 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health scientific statement, developed under Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, chair of the AHA writing group, provides 10 evidence-based guidance recommendations to promote cardiometabolic health.

“The way to make heart-healthy choices every day,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, in a statement, “is to step back, look at the environment in which you eat, whether it be at home, at work, during social interaction, and then identify what the best choices are. And if there are no good choices, then think about how you can modify your environment so that there are good choices.”

The statement, published in Circulation, underscores growing evidence that nutrition-related chronic diseases have maternal-nutritional origins, and that prevention of pediatric obesity is a key to preserving and prolonging ideal cardiovascular health.

The features are as follows:

• Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. To counter the shift toward higher energy intake and more sedentary lifestyles over the past 3 decades, the statement recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, adjusted for individual’s age, activity level, sex, and size.
• Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables; choose a wide variety. Observational and intervention studies document that dietary patterns rich in varied fruits and vegetables, with the exception of white potatoes, are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Also, whole fruits and vegetables, which more readily provide fiber and satiety, are preferred over juices.
• Choose whole grain foods and products made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains. Evidence from observational, interventional, and clinical studies confirm the benefits of frequent consumption of whole grains over infrequent consumption or over refined grains in terms of CVD risk, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic risk factors, laxation, and gut microbiota.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants (legumes and nuts).
• Higher intake of legumes, which are rich in protein and fiber, is associated with lower CVD risk, while higher nut intake is associated with lower risks of CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality/incidence. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-source whole foods, beyond health benefits, lowers the diet’s carbon footprint. Meat alternatives are often ultraprocessed and evidence on their short- and long-term health effects is limited. Unsaturated fats are preferred, as are lean, nonprocessed meats.
• Use liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel), animal fats (butter and lard), and partially hydrogenated fats. Saturated and trans fats (animal and dairy fats, and partially hydrogenated fat) should be replaced with nontropical liquid plant oils. Evidence supports cardiovascular benefits of dietary unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats primarily from plant oils (e.g. soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, walnuts, and flax seeds).
• Choose minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods. Because of their proven association with adverse health outcomes, including overweight and obesity, cardiometabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes, CVD), and all-cause mortality, the consumption of many ultraprocessed foods is of concern. Ultraprocessed foods include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. A general principle is to emphasize unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
• Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars. Added sugars (commonly glucose, dextrose, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, and concentrated fruit juice) are tied to elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and excess body weight. Findings from meta-analyses on body weight and metabolic outcomes for replacing added sugars with low-energy sweeteners are mixed, and the possibility of reverse causality has been raised.
• Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. In general, the effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure tend to be higher in Black people, middle-aged and older people, and those with hypertension. In the United States, the main combined sources of sodium intake are processed foods, those prepared outside the home, packaged foods, and restaurant foods. Potassium-enriched salts are a promising alternative.
• If you don’t drink alcohol, don’t start; if you choose to drink, limit intake.
• While relationships between alcohol intake and cardiovascular outcomes are complex, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently concluded that those who do drink should consume no more than one drink per day and should not drink alcohol in binges; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans con­tinues to recommend no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
• Adhere to the guidance regardless in all settings. Food-based dietary guidance applies to all foods and beverages, regardless of where prepared, procured, and consumed. Policies should be enacted that encourage healthier default options (for example, whole grains, minimized sodium and sugar content).

Recognizing impediments

The AHA/ASA scientific statement closes with the declaration: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.” It points to the National Institutes of Health’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for National Institutes of Health Nutrition Research, which focuses on precision nutrition as a means “to determine the impact on health of not only what individuals eat, but also of why, when, and how they eat throughout the life course.”

Ultimately, precision nutrition may provide personalized diets for CVD prevention. But the “food environment,” often conditioned by “rampant nutrition misinformation” through local, state, and federal practices and policies, may impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns. Factors such as targeted food marketing (for example, of processed food and beverages in minority neighborhoods), structural racism, neighborhood segregation, unhealthy built environments, and food insecurity create environments in which unhealthy foods are the default option.”

These factors compound adverse dietary and health effects, and underscore a need to “directly combat nutrition misinformation among the public and health care professionals.” They also explain why, despite widespread knowledge of heart-healthy dietary pattern components, little progress has been made in achieving dietary goals in the United States.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s office, in response to a request regarding AHA advocacy and consumer programs, provided the following links: Voices for Healthy Kids initiative site and choosing healthier processed foods and one on fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Lichtenstein had no disclosures. Disclosures for the writing group members are included in the statement.

In a new scientific statement on diet and lifestyle recommendations, the American Heart Association is highlighting, for the first time, structural challenges that impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns.

American Heart Association

This is in addition to stressing aspects of diet that improve cardiovascular health and reduce cardiovascular risk, with an emphasis on dietary patterns and food-based guidance beyond naming individual foods or nutrients.

The 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health scientific statement, developed under Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, chair of the AHA writing group, provides 10 evidence-based guidance recommendations to promote cardiometabolic health.

“The way to make heart-healthy choices every day,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, in a statement, “is to step back, look at the environment in which you eat, whether it be at home, at work, during social interaction, and then identify what the best choices are. And if there are no good choices, then think about how you can modify your environment so that there are good choices.”

The statement, published in Circulation, underscores growing evidence that nutrition-related chronic diseases have maternal-nutritional origins, and that prevention of pediatric obesity is a key to preserving and prolonging ideal cardiovascular health.

The features are as follows:

• Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. To counter the shift toward higher energy intake and more sedentary lifestyles over the past 3 decades, the statement recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, adjusted for individual’s age, activity level, sex, and size.
• Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables; choose a wide variety. Observational and intervention studies document that dietary patterns rich in varied fruits and vegetables, with the exception of white potatoes, are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Also, whole fruits and vegetables, which more readily provide fiber and satiety, are preferred over juices.
• Choose whole grain foods and products made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains. Evidence from observational, interventional, and clinical studies confirm the benefits of frequent consumption of whole grains over infrequent consumption or over refined grains in terms of CVD risk, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic risk factors, laxation, and gut microbiota.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants (legumes and nuts).
• Higher intake of legumes, which are rich in protein and fiber, is associated with lower CVD risk, while higher nut intake is associated with lower risks of CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality/incidence. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-source whole foods, beyond health benefits, lowers the diet’s carbon footprint. Meat alternatives are often ultraprocessed and evidence on their short- and long-term health effects is limited. Unsaturated fats are preferred, as are lean, nonprocessed meats.
• Use liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel), animal fats (butter and lard), and partially hydrogenated fats. Saturated and trans fats (animal and dairy fats, and partially hydrogenated fat) should be replaced with nontropical liquid plant oils. Evidence supports cardiovascular benefits of dietary unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats primarily from plant oils (e.g. soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, walnuts, and flax seeds).
• Choose minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods. Because of their proven association with adverse health outcomes, including overweight and obesity, cardiometabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes, CVD), and all-cause mortality, the consumption of many ultraprocessed foods is of concern. Ultraprocessed foods include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. A general principle is to emphasize unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
• Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars. Added sugars (commonly glucose, dextrose, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, and concentrated fruit juice) are tied to elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and excess body weight. Findings from meta-analyses on body weight and metabolic outcomes for replacing added sugars with low-energy sweeteners are mixed, and the possibility of reverse causality has been raised.
• Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. In general, the effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure tend to be higher in Black people, middle-aged and older people, and those with hypertension. In the United States, the main combined sources of sodium intake are processed foods, those prepared outside the home, packaged foods, and restaurant foods. Potassium-enriched salts are a promising alternative.
• If you don’t drink alcohol, don’t start; if you choose to drink, limit intake.
• While relationships between alcohol intake and cardiovascular outcomes are complex, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently concluded that those who do drink should consume no more than one drink per day and should not drink alcohol in binges; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans con­tinues to recommend no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
• Adhere to the guidance regardless in all settings. Food-based dietary guidance applies to all foods and beverages, regardless of where prepared, procured, and consumed. Policies should be enacted that encourage healthier default options (for example, whole grains, minimized sodium and sugar content).

Recognizing impediments

The AHA/ASA scientific statement closes with the declaration: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.” It points to the National Institutes of Health’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for National Institutes of Health Nutrition Research, which focuses on precision nutrition as a means “to determine the impact on health of not only what individuals eat, but also of why, when, and how they eat throughout the life course.”

Ultimately, precision nutrition may provide personalized diets for CVD prevention. But the “food environment,” often conditioned by “rampant nutrition misinformation” through local, state, and federal practices and policies, may impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns. Factors such as targeted food marketing (for example, of processed food and beverages in minority neighborhoods), structural racism, neighborhood segregation, unhealthy built environments, and food insecurity create environments in which unhealthy foods are the default option.”

These factors compound adverse dietary and health effects, and underscore a need to “directly combat nutrition misinformation among the public and health care professionals.” They also explain why, despite widespread knowledge of heart-healthy dietary pattern components, little progress has been made in achieving dietary goals in the United States.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s office, in response to a request regarding AHA advocacy and consumer programs, provided the following links: Voices for Healthy Kids initiative site and choosing healthier processed foods and one on fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Lichtenstein had no disclosures. Disclosures for the writing group members are included in the statement.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

A clinical update from the American Gastroenterological Association focuses on bleeding and thrombosis-related questions in patients with cirrhosis. It provides guidance on test strategies for bleeding risk, preprocedure management of bleeding risk, venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, screening for portal vein thrombosis (PVT), and anticoagulation therapies. It is aimed at primary care providers, gastroenterologists, and hepatologists, among other health care providers.

In cirrhosis, there are often changes to platelet (PLT) counts and prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), among other parameters, and historically these changes led to concerns that patients were at greater risk of bleeding or thrombosis. More recent evidence has led to a nuanced view. Neither factor necessarily suggests increased bleeding risk, and the severity of coagulopathy predicted by them does not predict the risk of bleeding complications.

Patients with cirrhosis are at greater risk of thrombosis, but clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe anticoagulants because of uncertain risk profiles, and test strategies employing PT/INR to estimate bleeding risk and track treatment endpoints in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists may not work in cirrhosis patients with alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant measures. Recent efforts to address this led to testing of fibrin clot formation and lysis to better gauge the variety of abnormalities in cirrhosis patients.

The guideline, published in Gastroenterology, was informed by a technical review that focused on both bleeding-related and thrombosis-related questions. Bleeding-related questions included testing strategies and preprocedure prophylaxis to reduce bleeding risk. Thrombosis-related questions included whether VTE prophylaxis may be useful in hospitalized patients with cirrhosis, whether patients should be screened for PVT, potential therapies for nontumoral PVT, and whether or not anticoagulation is safe and effective when atrial fibrillation is present alongside cirrhosis.

Because of a lack of evidence, the guideline provides no recommendations on visco-elastic testing for bleeding risk in advance of common gastrointestinal procedures for patients with stable cirrhosis. It recommends against use of extensive preprocedural testing, such as repeated PT/INR or PLT count testing.

The guideline also looked at whether preprocedural efforts to correct coagulation parameters could reduce bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis. It recommends against giving blood products ahead of the procedure for patients with stable cirrhosis without severe thrombocytopenia or severe coagulopathy. Such interventions can be considered for patients in the latter categories who are undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk after consideration of risks and benefits, and consultation with a hematologist.

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) are also not recommended in patients with thrombocytopenia and stable cirrhosis undergoing common procedures, but they can be considered for patients who are more concerned about reduction of bleeding events and less concerned about the risk of PVT.

Patients who are hospitalized and meet the requirements should receive VTE prophylaxis. Although there is little available evidence about the effects of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis, there is strong evidence of benefit in acutely ill hospitalized patients, and patients with cirrhosis are believed to be at a similar risk of VTE. There is evidence of increased bleed risk, but this is of very low certainty.

PVT should not be routinely tested for, but such testing can be offered to patients with a high level of concern over PVT and are not as worried about potential harms of treatment. This recommendation does not apply to patients waiting for a liver transplant.

Patients with non-umoral PVT should receive anticoagulation therapy, but patients who have high levels of concern about bleeding risk from anticoagulation and put a lower value on possible benefits of anticoagulation may choose not to receive it.

The guideline recommends anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis who are indicated for it. Patients with more concern about the bleeding risk of anticoagulation and place lower value on the reduction in stroke risk may choose to not receive anticoagulation. This is particularly true for those with more advanced cirrhosis (Child-Turcotte-Pugh Class C) and/or low CHA2DS2-VASC scores.

Nearly all of the recommendations in the guideline are conditional, reflecting a lack of data and a range of knowledge gaps that need filling. The authors call for additional research to identify specific patients who are at high risk for bleeding or thrombosis “to appropriately provide prophylaxis using blood product transfusion or TPO-RAs in patients at risk for clinically significant bleeding, to screen for and treat PVT, and to prevent clinically significant thromboembolic events.”

The development of the guideline was funded fully by the AGA. Members of the panel submitted conflict of interest information, and these statements are maintained at AGA headquarters.

It was Oct. 28 when the two big North American cardiology societies issued a joint practice guideline on evaluating and managing chest pain that was endorsed by five other subspecialty groups. The next day, another group that had taken part in the document’s genesis explained why it wasn’t one of those five.

Although the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) was “actively engaged at every stage of the guideline-writing and review process,” the society “could not endorse the guideline,” the society announced in a statement released to clinicians and the media. The most prominent cited reason: It doesn’t adequately “support the principle of Patient First Imaging.”

The guideline was published in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, flagship journals of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, respectively.

The document notes at least two clinicians represented ASNC as peer reviewers, and another was on the writing committee, but the organization does not appear in the list of societies endorsing the document.

“We believe that the document fails to provide unbiased guidance to health care professionals on the optimal evaluation of patients with chest pain,” contends an editorial ASNC board members have scheduled for the Jan. 10 issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine but is available now on an open-access preprint server.

“Despite the many important and helpful recommendations in the new guideline, there are several recommendations that we could not support,” it states.

“The ASNC board of directors reviewed the document twice during the endorsement process,” and the society “offered substantive comments after the first endorsement review, several of which were addressed,” Randall C. Thompson, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“However, some of the board’s concerns went unresolved. It was after the board’s second review, when the document had been declared finalized, that they voted not to endorse,” said Dr. Thompson, who is ASNC president.

“When we gather multiple organizations together to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of peer-reviewed, published literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” Guideline Writing Committee Chair Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization in a prepared statement.

“The ASNC had a representative on the writing committee who is a coauthor on the paper and actively participated throughout the writing process the past 4 years,” she said. “The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain, as agreed by the seven endorsing organizations.”

The document does not clearly note that an ASNC representative was on the writing committee. However, ASNC confirmed that Renee Bullock-Palmer, MD, Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., is a fellow of the ASNC and had represented the group as one of the coauthors. Two “official reviewers” of the document, however, are listed as ASNC representatives.
 

Points of contention

“The decision about which test to order can be a nuanced one, and cardiac imaging tests tend to be complementary,” elaborates the editorial on the issue of patient-centered management.

Careful patient selection for different tests is important, “and physician and technical local expertise, availability, quality of equipment, and patient preference are extremely important factors to consider. There is not enough emphasis on this important point,” contend the authors. “This is an important limitation of the guideline.”

Other issues of concern include “lack of balance in the document’s presentation of the science on FFR-CT [fractional flow reserve assessment with computed tomography] and its inappropriately prominent endorsement,” the editorial states.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–recognized “limitations and contraindications” to FFR-CT tend to be glossed over in the document, Dr. Thompson said. And most ASNC board members were “concerned with the prominent location of the recommendations for FFR-CT in various tables – especially since there was minimal-to-no discussion of the fact that it is currently provided by only one company, that it is not widely available nor covered routinely by health insurance carriers, and [that] the accuracy in the most relevant population is disputed.”

In other concerns, the document “inadequately discusses the benefit” of combining coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores with functional testing, which ASNC said it supports. For example, adding CAC scores to myocardial perfusion imaging improves its diagnostic accuracy and prognostic power.
 

Functional vs. anatomic testing?

Moreover, “it is no longer appropriate to bundle all types of stress testing together. All stress imaging tests have their unique advantages and limitations.” Yet, “the concept of the dichotomy of functional testing versus anatomic testing is a common theme in the guideline in many important patient groups,” the editorial states. That could overemphasize CT angiography and thus “blur distinction between different types of functional tests.”

Such concerns about “imbalance” in the portrayals of the two kinds of tests were “amplified by the problem of health insurance companies and radiologic benefits managers inappropriately substituting a test that was ordered by a physician with a different test,” Dr. Thompson elaborated. “There is the impression that some of them ‘cherry-pick’ certain guidelines and that this practice is harmful to patients.”

The ASNC currently does not plan its own corresponding guideline, he said. But the editorial says that “over the coming weeks and months ASNC will offer a series of webinars and other programs that address specific patient populations and dilemmas.” Also, “we will enhance our focus on programs to address quality and efficiency to support a patient-first approach to imaging.”

The five subspecialty groups that have endorsed the document are the American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Chest Physicians, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

Dr. Thompson has reported no relevant financial relationships. Statements of disclosure for the other editorial writers are listed in the publication.

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

It was Oct. 28 when the two big North American cardiology societies issued a joint practice guideline on evaluating and managing chest pain that was endorsed by five other subspecialty groups. The next day, another group that had taken part in the document’s genesis explained why it wasn’t one of those five.

Although the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) was “actively engaged at every stage of the guideline-writing and review process,” the society “could not endorse the guideline,” the society announced in a statement released to clinicians and the media. The most prominent cited reason: It doesn’t adequately “support the principle of Patient First Imaging.”

The guideline was published in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, flagship journals of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, respectively.

The document notes at least two clinicians represented ASNC as peer reviewers, and another was on the writing committee, but the organization does not appear in the list of societies endorsing the document.

“We believe that the document fails to provide unbiased guidance to health care professionals on the optimal evaluation of patients with chest pain,” contends an editorial ASNC board members have scheduled for the Jan. 10 issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine but is available now on an open-access preprint server.

“Despite the many important and helpful recommendations in the new guideline, there are several recommendations that we could not support,” it states.

“The ASNC board of directors reviewed the document twice during the endorsement process,” and the society “offered substantive comments after the first endorsement review, several of which were addressed,” Randall C. Thompson, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“However, some of the board’s concerns went unresolved. It was after the board’s second review, when the document had been declared finalized, that they voted not to endorse,” said Dr. Thompson, who is ASNC president.

“When we gather multiple organizations together to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of peer-reviewed, published literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” Guideline Writing Committee Chair Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization in a prepared statement.

“The ASNC had a representative on the writing committee who is a coauthor on the paper and actively participated throughout the writing process the past 4 years,” she said. “The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain, as agreed by the seven endorsing organizations.”

The document does not clearly note that an ASNC representative was on the writing committee. However, ASNC confirmed that Renee Bullock-Palmer, MD, Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., is a fellow of the ASNC and had represented the group as one of the coauthors. Two “official reviewers” of the document, however, are listed as ASNC representatives.
 

Points of contention

“The decision about which test to order can be a nuanced one, and cardiac imaging tests tend to be complementary,” elaborates the editorial on the issue of patient-centered management.

Careful patient selection for different tests is important, “and physician and technical local expertise, availability, quality of equipment, and patient preference are extremely important factors to consider. There is not enough emphasis on this important point,” contend the authors. “This is an important limitation of the guideline.”

Other issues of concern include “lack of balance in the document’s presentation of the science on FFR-CT [fractional flow reserve assessment with computed tomography] and its inappropriately prominent endorsement,” the editorial states.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–recognized “limitations and contraindications” to FFR-CT tend to be glossed over in the document, Dr. Thompson said. And most ASNC board members were “concerned with the prominent location of the recommendations for FFR-CT in various tables – especially since there was minimal-to-no discussion of the fact that it is currently provided by only one company, that it is not widely available nor covered routinely by health insurance carriers, and [that] the accuracy in the most relevant population is disputed.”

In other concerns, the document “inadequately discusses the benefit” of combining coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores with functional testing, which ASNC said it supports. For example, adding CAC scores to myocardial perfusion imaging improves its diagnostic accuracy and prognostic power.
 

Functional vs. anatomic testing?

Moreover, “it is no longer appropriate to bundle all types of stress testing together. All stress imaging tests have their unique advantages and limitations.” Yet, “the concept of the dichotomy of functional testing versus anatomic testing is a common theme in the guideline in many important patient groups,” the editorial states. That could overemphasize CT angiography and thus “blur distinction between different types of functional tests.”

Such concerns about “imbalance” in the portrayals of the two kinds of tests were “amplified by the problem of health insurance companies and radiologic benefits managers inappropriately substituting a test that was ordered by a physician with a different test,” Dr. Thompson elaborated. “There is the impression that some of them ‘cherry-pick’ certain guidelines and that this practice is harmful to patients.”

The ASNC currently does not plan its own corresponding guideline, he said. But the editorial says that “over the coming weeks and months ASNC will offer a series of webinars and other programs that address specific patient populations and dilemmas.” Also, “we will enhance our focus on programs to address quality and efficiency to support a patient-first approach to imaging.”

The five subspecialty groups that have endorsed the document are the American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Chest Physicians, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

Dr. Thompson has reported no relevant financial relationships. Statements of disclosure for the other editorial writers are listed in the publication.

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

It was Oct. 28 when the two big North American cardiology societies issued a joint practice guideline on evaluating and managing chest pain that was endorsed by five other subspecialty groups. The next day, another group that had taken part in the document’s genesis explained why it wasn’t one of those five.

Although the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology (ASNC) was “actively engaged at every stage of the guideline-writing and review process,” the society “could not endorse the guideline,” the society announced in a statement released to clinicians and the media. The most prominent cited reason: It doesn’t adequately “support the principle of Patient First Imaging.”

The guideline was published in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, flagship journals of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, respectively.

The document notes at least two clinicians represented ASNC as peer reviewers, and another was on the writing committee, but the organization does not appear in the list of societies endorsing the document.

“We believe that the document fails to provide unbiased guidance to health care professionals on the optimal evaluation of patients with chest pain,” contends an editorial ASNC board members have scheduled for the Jan. 10 issue of the Journal of Nuclear Medicine but is available now on an open-access preprint server.

“Despite the many important and helpful recommendations in the new guideline, there are several recommendations that we could not support,” it states.

“The ASNC board of directors reviewed the document twice during the endorsement process,” and the society “offered substantive comments after the first endorsement review, several of which were addressed,” Randall C. Thompson, MD, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“However, some of the board’s concerns went unresolved. It was after the board’s second review, when the document had been declared finalized, that they voted not to endorse,” said Dr. Thompson, who is ASNC president.

“When we gather multiple organizations together to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of peer-reviewed, published literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” Guideline Writing Committee Chair Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization in a prepared statement.

“The ASNC had a representative on the writing committee who is a coauthor on the paper and actively participated throughout the writing process the past 4 years,” she said. “The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain, as agreed by the seven endorsing organizations.”

The document does not clearly note that an ASNC representative was on the writing committee. However, ASNC confirmed that Renee Bullock-Palmer, MD, Deborah Heart and Lung Center, Browns Mills, N.J., is a fellow of the ASNC and had represented the group as one of the coauthors. Two “official reviewers” of the document, however, are listed as ASNC representatives.
 

Points of contention

“The decision about which test to order can be a nuanced one, and cardiac imaging tests tend to be complementary,” elaborates the editorial on the issue of patient-centered management.

Careful patient selection for different tests is important, “and physician and technical local expertise, availability, quality of equipment, and patient preference are extremely important factors to consider. There is not enough emphasis on this important point,” contend the authors. “This is an important limitation of the guideline.”

Other issues of concern include “lack of balance in the document’s presentation of the science on FFR-CT [fractional flow reserve assessment with computed tomography] and its inappropriately prominent endorsement,” the editorial states.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–recognized “limitations and contraindications” to FFR-CT tend to be glossed over in the document, Dr. Thompson said. And most ASNC board members were “concerned with the prominent location of the recommendations for FFR-CT in various tables – especially since there was minimal-to-no discussion of the fact that it is currently provided by only one company, that it is not widely available nor covered routinely by health insurance carriers, and [that] the accuracy in the most relevant population is disputed.”

In other concerns, the document “inadequately discusses the benefit” of combining coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores with functional testing, which ASNC said it supports. For example, adding CAC scores to myocardial perfusion imaging improves its diagnostic accuracy and prognostic power.
 

Functional vs. anatomic testing?

Moreover, “it is no longer appropriate to bundle all types of stress testing together. All stress imaging tests have their unique advantages and limitations.” Yet, “the concept of the dichotomy of functional testing versus anatomic testing is a common theme in the guideline in many important patient groups,” the editorial states. That could overemphasize CT angiography and thus “blur distinction between different types of functional tests.”

Such concerns about “imbalance” in the portrayals of the two kinds of tests were “amplified by the problem of health insurance companies and radiologic benefits managers inappropriately substituting a test that was ordered by a physician with a different test,” Dr. Thompson elaborated. “There is the impression that some of them ‘cherry-pick’ certain guidelines and that this practice is harmful to patients.”

The ASNC currently does not plan its own corresponding guideline, he said. But the editorial says that “over the coming weeks and months ASNC will offer a series of webinars and other programs that address specific patient populations and dilemmas.” Also, “we will enhance our focus on programs to address quality and efficiency to support a patient-first approach to imaging.”

The five subspecialty groups that have endorsed the document are the American Society of Echocardiography, American College of Chest Physicians, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

Dr. Thompson has reported no relevant financial relationships. Statements of disclosure for the other editorial writers are listed in the publication.

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

Clinicians should use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain (angina), advises a joint clinical practice guideline released by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

While evaluation of chest pain has been covered in previous guidelines, this is the first comprehensive guideline from the AHA and ACC focused exclusively on the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

“As our imaging technologies have evolved, we needed a contemporary approach to which patients need further testing, and which do not, in addition to what testing is effective,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, and chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“Our hope is that we have provided an evidence-based approach to evaluating patients that will assist all of us who manage, diagnose, and treat patients who experience chest pain,” said Dr. Gulati, who is also president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

The guideline was simultaneously published online Oct. 28, 2021, in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Atypical’ is out, ‘noncardiac’ is in

Each year, chest pain sends more than 6.5 million adults to the ED and more than 4 million to outpatient clinics in the United States.

Yet, among all patients who come to the ED, only 5% will have acute coronary syndrome (ACS). More than half will ultimately have a noncardiac reason for their chest pain, including respiratory, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, or other causes.

The guideline says evaluating the severity and the cause of chest pain is essential and advises using standard risk assessments to determine if a patient is at low, intermediate, or high risk for having a cardiac event.

“I hope clinicians take from our guidelines the understanding that low-risk patients often do not need additional testing. And if we communicate this effectively with our patients – incorporating shared decision-making into our practice – we can reduce ‘overtesting’ in low-risk patients,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.

The guideline notes that women are unique when presenting with ACS symptoms. While chest pain is the dominant and most common symptom for both men and women, women may be more likely to also have symptoms such as nausea and shortness of breath.

The guideline also encourages using the term “noncardiac” if heart disease is not suspected in a patient with angina and says the term “atypical” is a “misleading” descriptor of chest pain and should not be used.

“Words matter, and we need to move away from describing chest pain as ‘atypical’ because it has resulted in confusion when these words are used,” Dr. Gulati stressed.

“Rather than meaning a different way of presenting, it has taken on a meaning to imply it is not cardiac. It is more useful to talk about the probability of the pain being cardiac vs noncardiac,” Dr. Gulati explained.
 

No one best test for everyone

There is also a focus on evaluation of patients with chest pain who present to the ED. The initial goals of ED physicians should be to identify if there are life-threatening causes and to determine if there is a need for hospital admission or testing, the guideline states.

Thorough screening in the ED may help determine who is at high risk versus intermediate or low risk for a cardiac event. An individual deemed to be at low risk may be referred for additional evaluation in an outpatient setting rather than being admitted to the hospital, the authors wrote.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponins are the “preferred standard” for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury, they added.

“While there is no one ‘best test’ for every patient, the guideline emphasizes the tests that may be most appropriate, depending on the individual situation, and which ones won’t provide additional information; therefore, these tests should not be done just for the sake of doing them,” Dr. Gulati said in a news release.

“Appropriate testing is also dependent upon the technology and screening devices that are available at the hospital or healthcare center where the patient is receiving care. All imaging modalities highlighted in the guideline have an important role in the assessment of chest pain to help determine the underlying cause, with the goal of preventing a serious cardiac event,” Dr. Gulati added.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA and ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Five other partnering organizations participated in and approved the guideline: the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The writing group included representatives from each of the partnering organizations and experts in the field (cardiac intensivists, cardiac interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, emergency physicians, and epidemiologists), as well as a lay/patient representative.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Clinicians should use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain (angina), advises a joint clinical practice guideline released by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

While evaluation of chest pain has been covered in previous guidelines, this is the first comprehensive guideline from the AHA and ACC focused exclusively on the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

“As our imaging technologies have evolved, we needed a contemporary approach to which patients need further testing, and which do not, in addition to what testing is effective,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, and chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“Our hope is that we have provided an evidence-based approach to evaluating patients that will assist all of us who manage, diagnose, and treat patients who experience chest pain,” said Dr. Gulati, who is also president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

The guideline was simultaneously published online Oct. 28, 2021, in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Atypical’ is out, ‘noncardiac’ is in

Each year, chest pain sends more than 6.5 million adults to the ED and more than 4 million to outpatient clinics in the United States.

Yet, among all patients who come to the ED, only 5% will have acute coronary syndrome (ACS). More than half will ultimately have a noncardiac reason for their chest pain, including respiratory, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, or other causes.

The guideline says evaluating the severity and the cause of chest pain is essential and advises using standard risk assessments to determine if a patient is at low, intermediate, or high risk for having a cardiac event.

“I hope clinicians take from our guidelines the understanding that low-risk patients often do not need additional testing. And if we communicate this effectively with our patients – incorporating shared decision-making into our practice – we can reduce ‘overtesting’ in low-risk patients,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.

The guideline notes that women are unique when presenting with ACS symptoms. While chest pain is the dominant and most common symptom for both men and women, women may be more likely to also have symptoms such as nausea and shortness of breath.

The guideline also encourages using the term “noncardiac” if heart disease is not suspected in a patient with angina and says the term “atypical” is a “misleading” descriptor of chest pain and should not be used.

“Words matter, and we need to move away from describing chest pain as ‘atypical’ because it has resulted in confusion when these words are used,” Dr. Gulati stressed.

“Rather than meaning a different way of presenting, it has taken on a meaning to imply it is not cardiac. It is more useful to talk about the probability of the pain being cardiac vs noncardiac,” Dr. Gulati explained.
 

No one best test for everyone

There is also a focus on evaluation of patients with chest pain who present to the ED. The initial goals of ED physicians should be to identify if there are life-threatening causes and to determine if there is a need for hospital admission or testing, the guideline states.

Thorough screening in the ED may help determine who is at high risk versus intermediate or low risk for a cardiac event. An individual deemed to be at low risk may be referred for additional evaluation in an outpatient setting rather than being admitted to the hospital, the authors wrote.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponins are the “preferred standard” for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury, they added.

“While there is no one ‘best test’ for every patient, the guideline emphasizes the tests that may be most appropriate, depending on the individual situation, and which ones won’t provide additional information; therefore, these tests should not be done just for the sake of doing them,” Dr. Gulati said in a news release.

“Appropriate testing is also dependent upon the technology and screening devices that are available at the hospital or healthcare center where the patient is receiving care. All imaging modalities highlighted in the guideline have an important role in the assessment of chest pain to help determine the underlying cause, with the goal of preventing a serious cardiac event,” Dr. Gulati added.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA and ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Five other partnering organizations participated in and approved the guideline: the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The writing group included representatives from each of the partnering organizations and experts in the field (cardiac intensivists, cardiac interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, emergency physicians, and epidemiologists), as well as a lay/patient representative.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Clinicians should use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain (angina), advises a joint clinical practice guideline released by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

While evaluation of chest pain has been covered in previous guidelines, this is the first comprehensive guideline from the AHA and ACC focused exclusively on the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

“As our imaging technologies have evolved, we needed a contemporary approach to which patients need further testing, and which do not, in addition to what testing is effective,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, and chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“Our hope is that we have provided an evidence-based approach to evaluating patients that will assist all of us who manage, diagnose, and treat patients who experience chest pain,” said Dr. Gulati, who is also president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

The guideline was simultaneously published online Oct. 28, 2021, in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Atypical’ is out, ‘noncardiac’ is in

Each year, chest pain sends more than 6.5 million adults to the ED and more than 4 million to outpatient clinics in the United States.

Yet, among all patients who come to the ED, only 5% will have acute coronary syndrome (ACS). More than half will ultimately have a noncardiac reason for their chest pain, including respiratory, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, or other causes.

The guideline says evaluating the severity and the cause of chest pain is essential and advises using standard risk assessments to determine if a patient is at low, intermediate, or high risk for having a cardiac event.

“I hope clinicians take from our guidelines the understanding that low-risk patients often do not need additional testing. And if we communicate this effectively with our patients – incorporating shared decision-making into our practice – we can reduce ‘overtesting’ in low-risk patients,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.

The guideline notes that women are unique when presenting with ACS symptoms. While chest pain is the dominant and most common symptom for both men and women, women may be more likely to also have symptoms such as nausea and shortness of breath.

The guideline also encourages using the term “noncardiac” if heart disease is not suspected in a patient with angina and says the term “atypical” is a “misleading” descriptor of chest pain and should not be used.

“Words matter, and we need to move away from describing chest pain as ‘atypical’ because it has resulted in confusion when these words are used,” Dr. Gulati stressed.

“Rather than meaning a different way of presenting, it has taken on a meaning to imply it is not cardiac. It is more useful to talk about the probability of the pain being cardiac vs noncardiac,” Dr. Gulati explained.
 

No one best test for everyone

There is also a focus on evaluation of patients with chest pain who present to the ED. The initial goals of ED physicians should be to identify if there are life-threatening causes and to determine if there is a need for hospital admission or testing, the guideline states.

Thorough screening in the ED may help determine who is at high risk versus intermediate or low risk for a cardiac event. An individual deemed to be at low risk may be referred for additional evaluation in an outpatient setting rather than being admitted to the hospital, the authors wrote.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponins are the “preferred standard” for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury, they added.

“While there is no one ‘best test’ for every patient, the guideline emphasizes the tests that may be most appropriate, depending on the individual situation, and which ones won’t provide additional information; therefore, these tests should not be done just for the sake of doing them,” Dr. Gulati said in a news release.

“Appropriate testing is also dependent upon the technology and screening devices that are available at the hospital or healthcare center where the patient is receiving care. All imaging modalities highlighted in the guideline have an important role in the assessment of chest pain to help determine the underlying cause, with the goal of preventing a serious cardiac event,” Dr. Gulati added.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA and ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Five other partnering organizations participated in and approved the guideline: the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The writing group included representatives from each of the partnering organizations and experts in the field (cardiac intensivists, cardiac interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, emergency physicians, and epidemiologists), as well as a lay/patient representative.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.

Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.

The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.

The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.

More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
 

Management of hypoparathyroidism

The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.

There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.

The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.

The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.

Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:

• Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
• Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
• Evaluate target organ damage.
• Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
• Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life. 

The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.

It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.

A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.

Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.

“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.

The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.  
 

Management of primary hyperparathyroidism

There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.

The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.

As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.

They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.

“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.

In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.

Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.

The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.

In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.

Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.

The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.

Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.

The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.

The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.

More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
 

Management of hypoparathyroidism

The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.

There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.

The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.

The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.

Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:

• Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
• Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
• Evaluate target organ damage.
• Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
• Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life. 

The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.

It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.

A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.

Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.

“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.

The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.  
 

Management of primary hyperparathyroidism

There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.

The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.

As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.

They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.

“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.

In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.

Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.

The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.

In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.

Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.

The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large international team of experts has developed two comprehensive guidelines for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing hypoparathyroidism and hyperparathyroidism, which replace guidelines issued 5 and 7 years ago.

Aliya A. Khan, MD, presented an overview of the hypoparathyroidism guidelines and John P. Bilezikian, MD, presented key aspects of the hyperparathyroidism guidelines at the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2021 Annual Meeting.

The guidelines will be published as 17 articles in two issues of the society’s Journal of Bone and Mineral Research in 2022 – one on hypoparathyroidism and the other on hyperparathyroidism.

The work represents an “unprecedented effort” by more than 100 experts from 16 countries (United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Israel, Lebanon, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom), Dr. Bilezikian told this news organization in an interview.

More than 100 international and national endocrine and osteoporosis organizations, societies, and patient advocacy groups from more than 50 countries have expressed interest in endorsing the guidelines.
 

Management of hypoparathyroidism

The new guidelines on hypoparathyroidism replace the guidelines issued in 2016 that were developed at the First International Conference on the Management of Hypoparathyroidism, Dr. Khan, from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an email.

There was a need for new hypoparathyroidism guidelines, she explained, because of the better understanding of associated complications, how to predict who will develop hypoparathyroidism postoperatively (and how to prevent this), how and when to investigate a genetic cause further, when to consider parathyroid hormone (PTH) replacement therapy (and the benefits of the various molecules available today as well as those being evaluated in clinical research), and how to diagnose and manage hypoparathyroidism during pregnancy and lactation.

The experts in hypoparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology and financial burden, etiology and pathophysiology, genetics and diagnosis, and patient evaluation and management.

The guidelines, developed over the past 18 months, provide detailed evidence-based graded (strong to weak) as well as ungraded (current practice) recommendations.

Summarizing a few key takeaways, Dr. Khan noted the guidelines recommend that clinicians treating patients with hypoparathyroidism should:

• Diagnose hypoparathyroidism if serum calcium corrected for albumin is low in the presence of a low or inappropriately normal PTH confirmed on two occasions 2 weeks apart (which may be supported by other specified abnormalities).
• Determine the cause for the hypoparathyroidism (which includes postsurgery, genetic variant, autoimmune, radiation, or idiopathic causes).
• Evaluate target organ damage.
• Try to achieve treatment goals and minimize risks for long-term complications.
• Consider PTH replacement therapy if patients have inadequate control, with symptoms of hypocalcemia or hypercalcemia, high phosphate, kidney disease, or high urine calcium, or poor quality of life. 

The guideline strongly recommends using PTH measurements after total thyroidectomy to try to predict which patients will develop permanent postsurgical hypoparathyroidism.

It provides a clinical approach for establishing the genetic etiology of hypoparathyroidism.

A meta-analysis of 81 studies identified that the most common symptoms/complications of chronic hypoparathyroidism were, in descending order, cataract (24%), infection (18%), nephrolithiasis, renal insufficiency, seizures, depression, ischemic heart disease, and arrhythmias.

Based on the best available evidence, the guideline advises that “clinicians need to carefully determine why a patient has hypoparathyroidism and develop an individualized treatment plan with conventional therapy consisting of calcium, active vitamin D, hydrochlorothiazide, and plain vitamin D,” Dr. Khan continued.

“If a patient has poorly controlled hypoparathyroidism with many symptoms or is not doing well, then clinicians must consider PTH replacement therapy, since this will replace the missing hormone, lower the urine calcium losses, bring the serum calcium back up to the normal reference range, and lower phosphate (which appears to be associated with kidney calcification and may also contribute to basal ganglia calcification and calcium deposits in the eye),” she noted.

The guideline also discusses the optimal way to monitor and treat patients during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding to optimize outcomes for mother and baby. The key points are closer patient monitoring with normalization of calcium, urine calcium, phosphate, and vitamin D.  
 

Management of primary hyperparathyroidism

There was a need to update the previous 2014 guidelines developed at the Fourth International Workshop on the Management of Primary Hyperparathyroidism because, among other things, recent studies have provided new evidence about the different clinical phenotypes of primary hyperparathyroidism and ways the disease affects the skeleton and kidneys, Dr. Bilezikian, from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, explained.

The experts in hyperparathyroidism were divided into four task forces that covered epidemiology, pathophysiology and genetics; classical and nonclassical disease manifestations; surgical aspects; and patient evaluation and management.

As part of these topics, the experts reviewed biochemical, skeletal, and renal findings, nonclassical features (such as neurocognitive complaints), nutritional and pharmacologic approaches, and disease course with or without surgical or medical intervention.

They made recommendations for diagnosis of hypercalcemic and normocalcemic phenotypes, differential diagnosis, evaluation of the skeleton and the kidney, indications for surgery, role of parathyroid imaging, indications for pharmacologic intervention, and monitoring.

“Consider the way this disease has appeared to change in the last 50 years,” said Dr. Bilezikian. In the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, patients with hyperparathyroidism were really sick and had severe bone disease and kidney disease. Then in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, the disease was more often discovered because of a screening test; high serum calcium was a hallmark of finding asymptomatic hyperparathyroidism.

In recent years, hyperparathyroidism is often discovered incidentally, when examining the skeleton or kidneys, he continued.

Primary hyperparathyroidism can now be subdivided into three types: patients who have target organ (kidney, bone) involvement, patients who don’t have this, and patients who have normocalcemic primary hyperparathyroidism.

The guideline discusses new medications that have become available for hyperparathyroidism, as well as surgery (the only cure), including how preoperative imaging can identify the overactive parathyroid gland, and the guidelines go into detail about how to monitor a patient and why a clinician would or would not recommend surgery, Dr. Bilezikian explained.

In the end, treatment is tailored to the individual.

Last, the guideline identifies eight areas where more research is needed.

The guidelines were funded by unrestricted educational grants from Amolyt, Ascendis, Calcilytix, and Takeda. Dr. Khan has reported participating on advisory boards for Alexion, Amgen, Amolyt, and Takeda, being a consultant for Amgen, receiving grants from Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ascendis, being an investigator for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, Ascendis, and Chugai, and being a speaker for Alexion, Amgen, Takeda, and Ultragenyx. Dr. Bilezikian has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Following up on its 2007 initiative to improve care for people who have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the American Heart Association has issued a policy statement that includes a host of recommendations to further overcome barriers to optimal care for this most severe type of heart attack.

American Heart Association

The statement recommends steps for designing what the writing committee calls “the ideal STEMI system of care” for patients who have these severe heart attacks.

The focus of the policy statement is the AHA’s Mission: Lifeline national initiative to coordinate and improve the quality of care to patients with STEMI, which was introduced in 2007. Since then, the number or participating hospitals has increased from 485 to 857, now covering more than 85% of the U.S. population, noted the new statement, published online in Circulation.

“Bringing STEMI referring hospitals, STEMI receiving centers and emergency medical services [EMS] together in the development of local and regional systems of care within the AHA’s Mission: Lifeline program has led to significant improvement in time to treatment and outcomes for patients with STEMI,” Alice K. Jacobs, MD, lead statement author and vice chair for clinical affairs in the department of medicine at Boston Medical Center and a professor at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Yet,” Dr. Jacobs added, “opportunities exist to further improve the coordination of care and address remaining barriers to providing ideal care. Moreover, Mission: Lifeline systems of care have been extended to other time-sensitive cardiovascular disorders including stroke and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.”

The statement itself noted, “Although there have been significant improvements in patients with STEMI receiving guideline-recommended care, progress has slowed during the past few years.” From 2008 to 2012, a number of key quality care measures at participating hospitals had improved markedly. For example, door-in-door-out (DIDO) transfers improved from a median of 76 to 62 minutes (P < .001).

However, from 2012 to 2019, with more hospitals participating, while many key measures improved, a few either plateaued or worsened slightly. Median DIDO time, for example – again, with more hospitals participating, compared with the earlier dataset – went from 45 in 2012 to 48 in 2019, according to AHA data.

Key recommendations aim to impact and improve hospital care for patients with STEMI, Dr. Jacobs said. “In addition to avoiding patient delay at the onset of recognized symptoms of a heart attack, accessing 911 and following EMS destination protocols, the prehospital activation of the cardiac catheterization lab and providing a 911 response for interhospital transport as well as direct-to-cardiac-catheterization-lab transport bypassing the emergency department when appropriate would all impact and improve hospital care.”

Other key recommendations of the statement include:

• Increasing public awareness of heart attack signs and symptoms and the importance for calling 911.
• Addressing post-MI care, including use of evidence-based practices for cardiac rehabilitation and even getting insurance companies to encourage cardiac rehab through incentives.
• Engaging rural hospitals by leveraging telemedicine to expedite percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and by developing systems for treatment protocols and rapid transport among facilities.
• Tearing down financial barriers with a global reimbursement model that encompasses each stop in a patient’s journey through the care system: the referring hospital, receiving center, EMS transport and transfer, and ancillary services.

The statement also took into account improving disparities in the quality of care women with STEMI receive. “It has been reported that women with STEMI may have less typical symptoms than men and arrive later [delay longer] than men after symptom onset,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Educating the public and all members of the health-care team about issues specific to women will be helpful in improving care in women. Of note, STEMI systems of care have been shown to reduce sex and age disparities in care.”

The statement also addressed implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that PCI should remain the dominant treatment for patients with classic STEMI. “Patients must be reassured that appropriate precautions have been implemented by EMS and hospital to protect them and health care workers from COVID-19 infection,” the statement noted.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Following up on its 2007 initiative to improve care for people who have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the American Heart Association has issued a policy statement that includes a host of recommendations to further overcome barriers to optimal care for this most severe type of heart attack.

American Heart Association

The statement recommends steps for designing what the writing committee calls “the ideal STEMI system of care” for patients who have these severe heart attacks.

The focus of the policy statement is the AHA’s Mission: Lifeline national initiative to coordinate and improve the quality of care to patients with STEMI, which was introduced in 2007. Since then, the number or participating hospitals has increased from 485 to 857, now covering more than 85% of the U.S. population, noted the new statement, published online in Circulation.

“Bringing STEMI referring hospitals, STEMI receiving centers and emergency medical services [EMS] together in the development of local and regional systems of care within the AHA’s Mission: Lifeline program has led to significant improvement in time to treatment and outcomes for patients with STEMI,” Alice K. Jacobs, MD, lead statement author and vice chair for clinical affairs in the department of medicine at Boston Medical Center and a professor at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Yet,” Dr. Jacobs added, “opportunities exist to further improve the coordination of care and address remaining barriers to providing ideal care. Moreover, Mission: Lifeline systems of care have been extended to other time-sensitive cardiovascular disorders including stroke and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.”

The statement itself noted, “Although there have been significant improvements in patients with STEMI receiving guideline-recommended care, progress has slowed during the past few years.” From 2008 to 2012, a number of key quality care measures at participating hospitals had improved markedly. For example, door-in-door-out (DIDO) transfers improved from a median of 76 to 62 minutes (P < .001).

However, from 2012 to 2019, with more hospitals participating, while many key measures improved, a few either plateaued or worsened slightly. Median DIDO time, for example – again, with more hospitals participating, compared with the earlier dataset – went from 45 in 2012 to 48 in 2019, according to AHA data.

Key recommendations aim to impact and improve hospital care for patients with STEMI, Dr. Jacobs said. “In addition to avoiding patient delay at the onset of recognized symptoms of a heart attack, accessing 911 and following EMS destination protocols, the prehospital activation of the cardiac catheterization lab and providing a 911 response for interhospital transport as well as direct-to-cardiac-catheterization-lab transport bypassing the emergency department when appropriate would all impact and improve hospital care.”

Other key recommendations of the statement include:

• Increasing public awareness of heart attack signs and symptoms and the importance for calling 911.
• Addressing post-MI care, including use of evidence-based practices for cardiac rehabilitation and even getting insurance companies to encourage cardiac rehab through incentives.
• Engaging rural hospitals by leveraging telemedicine to expedite percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and by developing systems for treatment protocols and rapid transport among facilities.
• Tearing down financial barriers with a global reimbursement model that encompasses each stop in a patient’s journey through the care system: the referring hospital, receiving center, EMS transport and transfer, and ancillary services.

The statement also took into account improving disparities in the quality of care women with STEMI receive. “It has been reported that women with STEMI may have less typical symptoms than men and arrive later [delay longer] than men after symptom onset,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Educating the public and all members of the health-care team about issues specific to women will be helpful in improving care in women. Of note, STEMI systems of care have been shown to reduce sex and age disparities in care.”

The statement also addressed implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that PCI should remain the dominant treatment for patients with classic STEMI. “Patients must be reassured that appropriate precautions have been implemented by EMS and hospital to protect them and health care workers from COVID-19 infection,” the statement noted.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Following up on its 2007 initiative to improve care for people who have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the American Heart Association has issued a policy statement that includes a host of recommendations to further overcome barriers to optimal care for this most severe type of heart attack.

American Heart Association

The statement recommends steps for designing what the writing committee calls “the ideal STEMI system of care” for patients who have these severe heart attacks.

The focus of the policy statement is the AHA’s Mission: Lifeline national initiative to coordinate and improve the quality of care to patients with STEMI, which was introduced in 2007. Since then, the number or participating hospitals has increased from 485 to 857, now covering more than 85% of the U.S. population, noted the new statement, published online in Circulation.

“Bringing STEMI referring hospitals, STEMI receiving centers and emergency medical services [EMS] together in the development of local and regional systems of care within the AHA’s Mission: Lifeline program has led to significant improvement in time to treatment and outcomes for patients with STEMI,” Alice K. Jacobs, MD, lead statement author and vice chair for clinical affairs in the department of medicine at Boston Medical Center and a professor at Boston University, said in an interview.

“Yet,” Dr. Jacobs added, “opportunities exist to further improve the coordination of care and address remaining barriers to providing ideal care. Moreover, Mission: Lifeline systems of care have been extended to other time-sensitive cardiovascular disorders including stroke and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.”

The statement itself noted, “Although there have been significant improvements in patients with STEMI receiving guideline-recommended care, progress has slowed during the past few years.” From 2008 to 2012, a number of key quality care measures at participating hospitals had improved markedly. For example, door-in-door-out (DIDO) transfers improved from a median of 76 to 62 minutes (P < .001).

However, from 2012 to 2019, with more hospitals participating, while many key measures improved, a few either plateaued or worsened slightly. Median DIDO time, for example – again, with more hospitals participating, compared with the earlier dataset – went from 45 in 2012 to 48 in 2019, according to AHA data.

Key recommendations aim to impact and improve hospital care for patients with STEMI, Dr. Jacobs said. “In addition to avoiding patient delay at the onset of recognized symptoms of a heart attack, accessing 911 and following EMS destination protocols, the prehospital activation of the cardiac catheterization lab and providing a 911 response for interhospital transport as well as direct-to-cardiac-catheterization-lab transport bypassing the emergency department when appropriate would all impact and improve hospital care.”

Other key recommendations of the statement include:

• Increasing public awareness of heart attack signs and symptoms and the importance for calling 911.
• Addressing post-MI care, including use of evidence-based practices for cardiac rehabilitation and even getting insurance companies to encourage cardiac rehab through incentives.
• Engaging rural hospitals by leveraging telemedicine to expedite percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and by developing systems for treatment protocols and rapid transport among facilities.
• Tearing down financial barriers with a global reimbursement model that encompasses each stop in a patient’s journey through the care system: the referring hospital, receiving center, EMS transport and transfer, and ancillary services.

The statement also took into account improving disparities in the quality of care women with STEMI receive. “It has been reported that women with STEMI may have less typical symptoms than men and arrive later [delay longer] than men after symptom onset,” Dr. Jacobs said. “Educating the public and all members of the health-care team about issues specific to women will be helpful in improving care in women. Of note, STEMI systems of care have been shown to reduce sex and age disparities in care.”

The statement also addressed implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that PCI should remain the dominant treatment for patients with classic STEMI. “Patients must be reassured that appropriate precautions have been implemented by EMS and hospital to protect them and health care workers from COVID-19 infection,” the statement noted.

Dr. Jacobs has no relevant relationships to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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