MDedge Surgery

Antireflux surgery may be no more effective than antireflux medication for reducing risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among patients with Barrett’s esophagus, according to a Nordic retrospective study.

Risk of EAC was higher among patients who underwent surgery, and risk appeared to increase over time, suggesting that postoperative patients should continue to participate in surveillance programs, reported lead author Jesper Lagergren, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

Karolinska Institutet

“Antireflux surgery with fundoplication increases the ability of the gastroesophageal anatomic and physiological barrier to prevent reflux, and can thus prevent any carcinogenic gastric content from reaching the esophagus, including both acid and bile,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology, noting that surgery reduces esophageal acid exposure to a greater degree than medication. “Antireflux surgery may thus prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma better than antireflux medication.”

Three meta-analyses to date, however, have failed to provide consistent support for this hypothesis.

“Most of the studies included in these meta-analyses came from single centers, were of small sample size, examined only one treatment arm, and had a short or incomplete follow-up, and ... were hampered by heterogeneity among the included studies,” they noted.

For the present study, Dr. Lagergren and colleagues analyzed national registry data from 33,939 patients with Barrett’s esophagus in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Out of this group, 542 patients (1.6%) had undergone antireflux surgery, while the remainder were managed with antireflux medication.

In both groups, approximately two-thirds of the patients were men. The median age at enrollment was about a decade higher in the medication group (66 vs. 54 years), and this group also tended to have more comorbidities.

After a follow-up period as long as 32 years, the absolute rates of EAC were 1.3% and 2.6% in the medication and surgery groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis, with adjustments for sex, age, year, comorbidities, and age, revealed that postsurgical patients had a 90% increased risk of EAC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5), versus patients treated with antireflux medication alone.

The relatively higher risk of EAC appeared to increase over time, based on a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.8 during the 1- to 4-year follow-up period (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.0), versus a significant, fourfold risk elevation during the 10- to 32-year follow-up period (HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.4-13.5).

“In this cohort of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma did not decrease after antireflux surgery compared with antireflux medication,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, the risk was increased throughout the follow-up among patients having undergone antireflux surgery.”

Dr. Lagergren and colleagues suggested that the reason for relatively higher cancer risk in the group that underwent surgery likely stems from early and prolonged acid exposure.

“[P]erforming antireflux surgery after years of GERD may be too late to enable a cancer-preventative effect, and most of the patients first diagnosed with Barrett’s esophagus reported a history of many years of GERD symptoms,” they wrote, suggesting that carcinogenic processes had already been set in motion by the time surgery was performed.

“[P]atients with Barrett’s esophagus who undergo antireflux surgery remain at an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and should continue taking part in surveillance programs,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, and Stockholm County Council. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Antireflux surgery may be no more effective than antireflux medication for reducing risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among patients with Barrett’s esophagus, according to a Nordic retrospective study.

Risk of EAC was higher among patients who underwent surgery, and risk appeared to increase over time, suggesting that postoperative patients should continue to participate in surveillance programs, reported lead author Jesper Lagergren, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

Karolinska Institutet

“Antireflux surgery with fundoplication increases the ability of the gastroesophageal anatomic and physiological barrier to prevent reflux, and can thus prevent any carcinogenic gastric content from reaching the esophagus, including both acid and bile,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology, noting that surgery reduces esophageal acid exposure to a greater degree than medication. “Antireflux surgery may thus prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma better than antireflux medication.”

Three meta-analyses to date, however, have failed to provide consistent support for this hypothesis.

“Most of the studies included in these meta-analyses came from single centers, were of small sample size, examined only one treatment arm, and had a short or incomplete follow-up, and ... were hampered by heterogeneity among the included studies,” they noted.

For the present study, Dr. Lagergren and colleagues analyzed national registry data from 33,939 patients with Barrett’s esophagus in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Out of this group, 542 patients (1.6%) had undergone antireflux surgery, while the remainder were managed with antireflux medication.

In both groups, approximately two-thirds of the patients were men. The median age at enrollment was about a decade higher in the medication group (66 vs. 54 years), and this group also tended to have more comorbidities.

After a follow-up period as long as 32 years, the absolute rates of EAC were 1.3% and 2.6% in the medication and surgery groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis, with adjustments for sex, age, year, comorbidities, and age, revealed that postsurgical patients had a 90% increased risk of EAC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5), versus patients treated with antireflux medication alone.

The relatively higher risk of EAC appeared to increase over time, based on a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.8 during the 1- to 4-year follow-up period (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.0), versus a significant, fourfold risk elevation during the 10- to 32-year follow-up period (HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.4-13.5).

“In this cohort of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma did not decrease after antireflux surgery compared with antireflux medication,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, the risk was increased throughout the follow-up among patients having undergone antireflux surgery.”

Dr. Lagergren and colleagues suggested that the reason for relatively higher cancer risk in the group that underwent surgery likely stems from early and prolonged acid exposure.

“[P]erforming antireflux surgery after years of GERD may be too late to enable a cancer-preventative effect, and most of the patients first diagnosed with Barrett’s esophagus reported a history of many years of GERD symptoms,” they wrote, suggesting that carcinogenic processes had already been set in motion by the time surgery was performed.

“[P]atients with Barrett’s esophagus who undergo antireflux surgery remain at an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and should continue taking part in surveillance programs,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, and Stockholm County Council. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Antireflux surgery may be no more effective than antireflux medication for reducing risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among patients with Barrett’s esophagus, according to a Nordic retrospective study.

Risk of EAC was higher among patients who underwent surgery, and risk appeared to increase over time, suggesting that postoperative patients should continue to participate in surveillance programs, reported lead author Jesper Lagergren, MD, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

Karolinska Institutet

“Antireflux surgery with fundoplication increases the ability of the gastroesophageal anatomic and physiological barrier to prevent reflux, and can thus prevent any carcinogenic gastric content from reaching the esophagus, including both acid and bile,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology, noting that surgery reduces esophageal acid exposure to a greater degree than medication. “Antireflux surgery may thus prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma better than antireflux medication.”

Three meta-analyses to date, however, have failed to provide consistent support for this hypothesis.

“Most of the studies included in these meta-analyses came from single centers, were of small sample size, examined only one treatment arm, and had a short or incomplete follow-up, and ... were hampered by heterogeneity among the included studies,” they noted.

For the present study, Dr. Lagergren and colleagues analyzed national registry data from 33,939 patients with Barrett’s esophagus in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Out of this group, 542 patients (1.6%) had undergone antireflux surgery, while the remainder were managed with antireflux medication.

In both groups, approximately two-thirds of the patients were men. The median age at enrollment was about a decade higher in the medication group (66 vs. 54 years), and this group also tended to have more comorbidities.

After a follow-up period as long as 32 years, the absolute rates of EAC were 1.3% and 2.6% in the medication and surgery groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis, with adjustments for sex, age, year, comorbidities, and age, revealed that postsurgical patients had a 90% increased risk of EAC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5), versus patients treated with antireflux medication alone.

The relatively higher risk of EAC appeared to increase over time, based on a nonsignificant hazard ratio of 1.8 during the 1- to 4-year follow-up period (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6-5.0), versus a significant, fourfold risk elevation during the 10- to 32-year follow-up period (HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.4-13.5).

“In this cohort of patients with Barrett’s esophagus, the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma did not decrease after antireflux surgery compared with antireflux medication,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, the risk was increased throughout the follow-up among patients having undergone antireflux surgery.”

Dr. Lagergren and colleagues suggested that the reason for relatively higher cancer risk in the group that underwent surgery likely stems from early and prolonged acid exposure.

“[P]erforming antireflux surgery after years of GERD may be too late to enable a cancer-preventative effect, and most of the patients first diagnosed with Barrett’s esophagus reported a history of many years of GERD symptoms,” they wrote, suggesting that carcinogenic processes had already been set in motion by the time surgery was performed.

“[P]atients with Barrett’s esophagus who undergo antireflux surgery remain at an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and should continue taking part in surveillance programs,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, and Stockholm County Council. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Transplanting livers from deceased donors who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 is safe and has no significant impact on short-term outcomes of allografts or recipients, based on a national study with the longest follow-up to date.

Using livers from deceased patients with COVID-19 could be an opportunity expand organ availability, reported principal investigator Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Findings were presented in November at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few centers trialed transplanting solid organs from COVID-19 positive donors with promising initial results,” presenting author Roy X. Wang, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in a written comment. “However, these were smaller experiences with short follow-up that were not exclusively focused on liver transplantation. We wanted to explore the safety of liver transplantation from COVID-19 positive donors using a large national dataset with the longest follow up time to date.”

The dataset included 13,096 COVID-negative donors and 299 COVID-positive donors who died between July 2020 and July 2022, with cases and controls matched via propensity scoring. COVID-positive donors were significantly more likely to be younger and have died of brain death. Beyond this difference in age, no significant demographic differences were detected.

After 1 year of follow-up, no statistically significant differences in patient survival (subhazard ratio, 1.11; log-rank P = .70) or allograft survival (hazard ratio, 1.44; log-rank P = .14) were detected when comparing livers transplanted from positive versus negative donors.

“Our findings support and expand upon the results from earlier studies,” Dr. Wang concluded. “Liver transplant from COVID-19-positive donors has acceptable short-term outcomes and may represent an opportunity to expand organ access.”

Still, more work is needed to assess other clinical metrics and long-term outcomes, he added.

“While we were able to show similar patient and graft survival post-transplant between COVID-19-positive and negative donors, rates of other complications were not investigated such as episodes of rejection, liver injury, and hospitalizations,” Dr. Wang said. “Due to data limitations, we are only able to report on outcomes up to 1 year post transplant. Additional investigation will be needed to continue monitoring future outcomes and identifying any differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive and negative donors.”

Timucin Taner, MD, PhD, division chair of transplant surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said the study is important because it reaffirms the majority opinion among transplant physicians: These livers are safe.

In an interview, Dr. Taner suggested that Dr. Wang’s call for longer term data is “mostly science speak,” since 1 year of follow-up should be sufficient to determine liver viability.

Mayo Clinic

“If a liver from a COVID-19 donor behaved well for a year, then chances are it’s not going to behave badly [later on] because of the virus at the time of donation,” Dr. Taner said.

He said the reported trends in usage of COVID-positive livers reflect early hesitancy that waned with rising vaccination rates, and recognition that the virus could not be spread via liver donation.

“To date, the only transmission [of SARS-CoV-2] from a transplant has been from a lung transplant,” Dr. Taner said, “and that was back in the days that we didn’t know about this. Other organs don’t transmit the disease, so they are easily usable.”

These new data should further increase confidence among both health care providers and patients, he added.

“[This study is] reassuring to the patients on the waitlist that these organs are very safe to use,” Dr. Taner said. “We as the transplant society are comfortable using them without any hesitation.”

The investigators and Dr. Taner disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Transplanting livers from deceased donors who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 is safe and has no significant impact on short-term outcomes of allografts or recipients, based on a national study with the longest follow-up to date.

Using livers from deceased patients with COVID-19 could be an opportunity expand organ availability, reported principal investigator Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Findings were presented in November at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few centers trialed transplanting solid organs from COVID-19 positive donors with promising initial results,” presenting author Roy X. Wang, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in a written comment. “However, these were smaller experiences with short follow-up that were not exclusively focused on liver transplantation. We wanted to explore the safety of liver transplantation from COVID-19 positive donors using a large national dataset with the longest follow up time to date.”

The dataset included 13,096 COVID-negative donors and 299 COVID-positive donors who died between July 2020 and July 2022, with cases and controls matched via propensity scoring. COVID-positive donors were significantly more likely to be younger and have died of brain death. Beyond this difference in age, no significant demographic differences were detected.

After 1 year of follow-up, no statistically significant differences in patient survival (subhazard ratio, 1.11; log-rank P = .70) or allograft survival (hazard ratio, 1.44; log-rank P = .14) were detected when comparing livers transplanted from positive versus negative donors.

“Our findings support and expand upon the results from earlier studies,” Dr. Wang concluded. “Liver transplant from COVID-19-positive donors has acceptable short-term outcomes and may represent an opportunity to expand organ access.”

Still, more work is needed to assess other clinical metrics and long-term outcomes, he added.

“While we were able to show similar patient and graft survival post-transplant between COVID-19-positive and negative donors, rates of other complications were not investigated such as episodes of rejection, liver injury, and hospitalizations,” Dr. Wang said. “Due to data limitations, we are only able to report on outcomes up to 1 year post transplant. Additional investigation will be needed to continue monitoring future outcomes and identifying any differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive and negative donors.”

Timucin Taner, MD, PhD, division chair of transplant surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said the study is important because it reaffirms the majority opinion among transplant physicians: These livers are safe.

In an interview, Dr. Taner suggested that Dr. Wang’s call for longer term data is “mostly science speak,” since 1 year of follow-up should be sufficient to determine liver viability.

Mayo Clinic

“If a liver from a COVID-19 donor behaved well for a year, then chances are it’s not going to behave badly [later on] because of the virus at the time of donation,” Dr. Taner said.

He said the reported trends in usage of COVID-positive livers reflect early hesitancy that waned with rising vaccination rates, and recognition that the virus could not be spread via liver donation.

“To date, the only transmission [of SARS-CoV-2] from a transplant has been from a lung transplant,” Dr. Taner said, “and that was back in the days that we didn’t know about this. Other organs don’t transmit the disease, so they are easily usable.”

These new data should further increase confidence among both health care providers and patients, he added.

“[This study is] reassuring to the patients on the waitlist that these organs are very safe to use,” Dr. Taner said. “We as the transplant society are comfortable using them without any hesitation.”

The investigators and Dr. Taner disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Transplanting livers from deceased donors who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 is safe and has no significant impact on short-term outcomes of allografts or recipients, based on a national study with the longest follow-up to date.

Using livers from deceased patients with COVID-19 could be an opportunity expand organ availability, reported principal investigator Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Findings were presented in November at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a few centers trialed transplanting solid organs from COVID-19 positive donors with promising initial results,” presenting author Roy X. Wang, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, said in a written comment. “However, these were smaller experiences with short follow-up that were not exclusively focused on liver transplantation. We wanted to explore the safety of liver transplantation from COVID-19 positive donors using a large national dataset with the longest follow up time to date.”

The dataset included 13,096 COVID-negative donors and 299 COVID-positive donors who died between July 2020 and July 2022, with cases and controls matched via propensity scoring. COVID-positive donors were significantly more likely to be younger and have died of brain death. Beyond this difference in age, no significant demographic differences were detected.

After 1 year of follow-up, no statistically significant differences in patient survival (subhazard ratio, 1.11; log-rank P = .70) or allograft survival (hazard ratio, 1.44; log-rank P = .14) were detected when comparing livers transplanted from positive versus negative donors.

“Our findings support and expand upon the results from earlier studies,” Dr. Wang concluded. “Liver transplant from COVID-19-positive donors has acceptable short-term outcomes and may represent an opportunity to expand organ access.”

Still, more work is needed to assess other clinical metrics and long-term outcomes, he added.

“While we were able to show similar patient and graft survival post-transplant between COVID-19-positive and negative donors, rates of other complications were not investigated such as episodes of rejection, liver injury, and hospitalizations,” Dr. Wang said. “Due to data limitations, we are only able to report on outcomes up to 1 year post transplant. Additional investigation will be needed to continue monitoring future outcomes and identifying any differences between recipients of COVID-19-positive and negative donors.”

Timucin Taner, MD, PhD, division chair of transplant surgery at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said the study is important because it reaffirms the majority opinion among transplant physicians: These livers are safe.

In an interview, Dr. Taner suggested that Dr. Wang’s call for longer term data is “mostly science speak,” since 1 year of follow-up should be sufficient to determine liver viability.

Mayo Clinic

“If a liver from a COVID-19 donor behaved well for a year, then chances are it’s not going to behave badly [later on] because of the virus at the time of donation,” Dr. Taner said.

He said the reported trends in usage of COVID-positive livers reflect early hesitancy that waned with rising vaccination rates, and recognition that the virus could not be spread via liver donation.

“To date, the only transmission [of SARS-CoV-2] from a transplant has been from a lung transplant,” Dr. Taner said, “and that was back in the days that we didn’t know about this. Other organs don’t transmit the disease, so they are easily usable.”

These new data should further increase confidence among both health care providers and patients, he added.

“[This study is] reassuring to the patients on the waitlist that these organs are very safe to use,” Dr. Taner said. “We as the transplant society are comfortable using them without any hesitation.”

The investigators and Dr. Taner disclosed no conflicts of interest.

More than one out of three adults in the United States could have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by 2050, substantially increasing the national clinical burden, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that health care systems should prepare for “large increases” in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and need for liver transplants, reported lead author Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.

Cleveland Clinic

“Following the alarming rise in prevalence of obesity and diabetes, NAFLD is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States in the next decade,” Dr. Le and colleagues wrote in their abstract for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “A better understanding of the clinical burden associated with NAFLD will enable health systems to prepare to meet this imminent demand from patients.”

To this end, Dr. Le and colleagues developed an agent-based state transition model to predict future prevalence of NAFLD and associated outcomes.

In the first part of the model, the investigators simulated population growth in the United States using Census Bureau data, including new births and immigration, from the year 2000 onward. The second part of the model simulated natural progression of NAFLD in adults via 14 associated conditions and events, including steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), HCC, liver transplants, liver-related mortality, and others.

By first comparing simulated findings with actual findings between 2000 and 2018, the investigators confirmed that their model could reliably predict the intended epidemiological parameters.

Next, they turned their model toward the future.

It predicted that the prevalence of NAFLD among US adults will rise from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% in 2050. Over the same timeframe, prevalence of NASH is predicted to increase from 20.0% to 21.8%, proportion of NAFLD cases developing cirrhosis is expected to increase from 1.9% to 3.1%, and liver-related mortality is estimated to rise from 0.4% to 1% of all deaths.

The model also predicted that the burden of HCC will increase from 10,400 to 19,300 new cases per year, while liver transplant burden will more than double, from 1,700 to 4,200 transplants per year.

“Our model forecasts substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next three decades,” Dr. Le said in a virtual press conference. “And in the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant.”

During the press conference, Norah Terrault, MD, president of the AASLD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted that all of the reported outcomes, including increasing rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and transplants are “potentially preventable.”

Keck School of Medicine

Dr. Terrault went on to suggest ways of combating this increasing burden of NAFLD, which she referred to as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the name now recommended by the AASLD.

“There’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this,” Dr. Terrault said. “We need to be bringing greater awareness both to patients, as well as to providers about how we seek out the diagnosis. And we need to bring greater awareness to the population around the things that contribute to MASLD.”

Rates of obesity and diabetes continue to rise, Dr. Terrault said, explaining why MASLD is more common than ever. To counteract these trends, she called for greater awareness of driving factors, such as dietary choices and sedentary lifestyle.

“These are all really important messages that we want to get out to the population, and are really the cornerstones for how we approach the management of patients who have MASLD,” Dr. Terrault said.

In discussion with Dr. Terrault, Dr. Le agreed that increased education may help stem the rising tide of disease, while treatment advances could also increase the odds of a brighter future.

“If we improve our management of NAFLD, or NAFLD-related comorbidities, and if we can develop an effective treatment for NAFLD, then obviously the future would not be so dark,” Dr. Le said, noting promising phase 3 data that would be presented at the meeting. “We are hopeful that the future of disease burden will not be as bad as our model predicts.”

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

More than one out of three adults in the United States could have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by 2050, substantially increasing the national clinical burden, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that health care systems should prepare for “large increases” in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and need for liver transplants, reported lead author Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.

Cleveland Clinic

“Following the alarming rise in prevalence of obesity and diabetes, NAFLD is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States in the next decade,” Dr. Le and colleagues wrote in their abstract for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “A better understanding of the clinical burden associated with NAFLD will enable health systems to prepare to meet this imminent demand from patients.”

To this end, Dr. Le and colleagues developed an agent-based state transition model to predict future prevalence of NAFLD and associated outcomes.

In the first part of the model, the investigators simulated population growth in the United States using Census Bureau data, including new births and immigration, from the year 2000 onward. The second part of the model simulated natural progression of NAFLD in adults via 14 associated conditions and events, including steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), HCC, liver transplants, liver-related mortality, and others.

By first comparing simulated findings with actual findings between 2000 and 2018, the investigators confirmed that their model could reliably predict the intended epidemiological parameters.

Next, they turned their model toward the future.

It predicted that the prevalence of NAFLD among US adults will rise from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% in 2050. Over the same timeframe, prevalence of NASH is predicted to increase from 20.0% to 21.8%, proportion of NAFLD cases developing cirrhosis is expected to increase from 1.9% to 3.1%, and liver-related mortality is estimated to rise from 0.4% to 1% of all deaths.

The model also predicted that the burden of HCC will increase from 10,400 to 19,300 new cases per year, while liver transplant burden will more than double, from 1,700 to 4,200 transplants per year.

“Our model forecasts substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next three decades,” Dr. Le said in a virtual press conference. “And in the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant.”

During the press conference, Norah Terrault, MD, president of the AASLD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted that all of the reported outcomes, including increasing rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and transplants are “potentially preventable.”

Keck School of Medicine

Dr. Terrault went on to suggest ways of combating this increasing burden of NAFLD, which she referred to as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the name now recommended by the AASLD.

“There’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this,” Dr. Terrault said. “We need to be bringing greater awareness both to patients, as well as to providers about how we seek out the diagnosis. And we need to bring greater awareness to the population around the things that contribute to MASLD.”

Rates of obesity and diabetes continue to rise, Dr. Terrault said, explaining why MASLD is more common than ever. To counteract these trends, she called for greater awareness of driving factors, such as dietary choices and sedentary lifestyle.

“These are all really important messages that we want to get out to the population, and are really the cornerstones for how we approach the management of patients who have MASLD,” Dr. Terrault said.

In discussion with Dr. Terrault, Dr. Le agreed that increased education may help stem the rising tide of disease, while treatment advances could also increase the odds of a brighter future.

“If we improve our management of NAFLD, or NAFLD-related comorbidities, and if we can develop an effective treatment for NAFLD, then obviously the future would not be so dark,” Dr. Le said, noting promising phase 3 data that would be presented at the meeting. “We are hopeful that the future of disease burden will not be as bad as our model predicts.”

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

More than one out of three adults in the United States could have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by 2050, substantially increasing the national clinical burden, according to investigators.

These findings suggest that health care systems should prepare for “large increases” in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and need for liver transplants, reported lead author Phuc Le, PhD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues.

Cleveland Clinic

“Following the alarming rise in prevalence of obesity and diabetes, NAFLD is projected to become the leading indication for liver transplant in the United States in the next decade,” Dr. Le and colleagues wrote in their abstract for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. “A better understanding of the clinical burden associated with NAFLD will enable health systems to prepare to meet this imminent demand from patients.”

To this end, Dr. Le and colleagues developed an agent-based state transition model to predict future prevalence of NAFLD and associated outcomes.

In the first part of the model, the investigators simulated population growth in the United States using Census Bureau data, including new births and immigration, from the year 2000 onward. The second part of the model simulated natural progression of NAFLD in adults via 14 associated conditions and events, including steatosis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), HCC, liver transplants, liver-related mortality, and others.

By first comparing simulated findings with actual findings between 2000 and 2018, the investigators confirmed that their model could reliably predict the intended epidemiological parameters.

Next, they turned their model toward the future.

It predicted that the prevalence of NAFLD among US adults will rise from 27.8% in 2020 to 34.3% in 2050. Over the same timeframe, prevalence of NASH is predicted to increase from 20.0% to 21.8%, proportion of NAFLD cases developing cirrhosis is expected to increase from 1.9% to 3.1%, and liver-related mortality is estimated to rise from 0.4% to 1% of all deaths.

The model also predicted that the burden of HCC will increase from 10,400 to 19,300 new cases per year, while liver transplant burden will more than double, from 1,700 to 4,200 transplants per year.

“Our model forecasts substantial clinical burden of NAFLD over the next three decades,” Dr. Le said in a virtual press conference. “And in the absence of effective treatments, health systems should plan for large increases in the number of liver cancer cases and the need for liver transplant.”

During the press conference, Norah Terrault, MD, president of the AASLD from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted that all of the reported outcomes, including increasing rates of liver cancer, cirrhosis, and transplants are “potentially preventable.”

Keck School of Medicine

Dr. Terrault went on to suggest ways of combating this increasing burden of NAFLD, which she referred to as metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the name now recommended by the AASLD.

“There’s no way we’re going to be able to transplant our way out of this,” Dr. Terrault said. “We need to be bringing greater awareness both to patients, as well as to providers about how we seek out the diagnosis. And we need to bring greater awareness to the population around the things that contribute to MASLD.”

Rates of obesity and diabetes continue to rise, Dr. Terrault said, explaining why MASLD is more common than ever. To counteract these trends, she called for greater awareness of driving factors, such as dietary choices and sedentary lifestyle.

“These are all really important messages that we want to get out to the population, and are really the cornerstones for how we approach the management of patients who have MASLD,” Dr. Terrault said.

In discussion with Dr. Terrault, Dr. Le agreed that increased education may help stem the rising tide of disease, while treatment advances could also increase the odds of a brighter future.

“If we improve our management of NAFLD, or NAFLD-related comorbidities, and if we can develop an effective treatment for NAFLD, then obviously the future would not be so dark,” Dr. Le said, noting promising phase 3 data that would be presented at the meeting. “We are hopeful that the future of disease burden will not be as bad as our model predicts.”

The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The average physician makes $352,000, and some earn well into the $500,000s. So, doctors don’t have to worry about money, right?

You know the answer to that.

One thing all physicians have in common about money, says James M. Dahle, MD, FACEP, founder of The White Coat Investor, is that they don’t receive any training in business, personal finance, or investing throughout their schooling or careers unless they seek it out. This leaves many unprepared to make the best investing and money-saving decisions, while others get too frustrated about their lack of knowledge to even dip their toe into the investing pool.

Exhibit A: Four out of 10 physicians have a net worth below $1 million, according to the Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2023. Elizabeth Chiang, MD, PhD, an oculoplastic surgeon and a physician money coach at Grow Your Wealthy Mindset, notes that many of those doctors are over age 65, “which means they essentially can’t retire.”

And that’s just one pain point.

Physicians have money concerns specific to their profession and background. Luckily, some fellow doctors also serve as financial and wealth advisors just for other doctors. We sought out a few to get their advice--and fixes--for common physician blind spots.

Blind Spot #1

The early lean years skew doctors’ money outlook. “We have an extended training period, which commonly consists of taking on a large amount of debt, followed by 3 to 8 years of being paid a modest salary, and then finally a large boost in income,” explains Dr. Chiang. This can lay a shaky foundation for the earning years to come, and as a result, a lot of doctors just don’t think about money in healthy ways. Once their incomes increase, physicians may be surprised, for example, that making a multiple six-figure salary means paying six figures in taxes.

The Fix

Treat financial health like physical health. That means money cannot be a taboo subject. “The misguided mindset is that we didn’t become physicians to make money, we did it to help people,” explains Jordan Frey, MD, creator of the blog, The Prudent Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Frey acknowledges that the desire to help is certainly true. But the result is a false idea that “to think about our personal finances makes us a worse doctor.”

Blind Spot #2

Because doctors know a lot about one thing (medicine), they might assume they know a lot about everything (such as investing). “Totally different fields with a different language and different way to think about it,” Dahle explains. This overconfidence could lead to some negligent or risky financial decisions.

The Fix

Educate yourself. There are several books on personal finance and investing written by physicians for physicians. Dr. Chiang recommends The Physician Philosopher’s Guide to Personal Finance, by James Turner, MD; Financial Freedom Rx, by Chirag Shah, MD, and Jayanth Sridhar, MD; and The Physician’s Guide to Finance, by Nicholas Christian and Amanda Christian, MD. There are also podcasts, blogs, and courses to help educate doctors on finance, such as the Fire Your Financial Advisor course by The White Coat Investor.

Blind Spot #3

Undersaving. Retirement saving is one thing, but 24% of doctors say they don’t even put money away in a taxable savings account, according to the Wealth & Debt Report.

Cobin Soelberg, MD, JD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and founder and principal advisor with Greeley Wealth Management, is the treasurer of his anesthesiology group. “I get to see every month how much people are saving, and even on an anesthesiologist salary, where everyone’s making about $400,000 a year, a lot of people are not saving anything, which is crazy.”

Undersaving can be both a time issue and a mindset one.

Time: Doctors often start investing in their retirement accounts later than the average professional, says Dr. Chiang. “A lot of physicians will max out their 401k or 403b,” she explains. “But if you’re putting in $20,000 a year and only starting when you’re in your early 30s, that’s not enough to get you to retirement.”

Mindset: Doctors also see people of all ages who are sick, dying, and injured. “They all know someone who worked hard and saved and then dropped dead at 55,” explains Dr. Dahle. This, he says, can lead to a bit of a “you only live once” attitude that prioritizes spending over saving.

The Fix

Shoot for 20%. If you can’t save 20% of your gross now, strive to get to that point. Think of it as telling a patient they have to change their behavior or trouble will come - not if, but when. “Develop a written investing plan and then stick with it through thick and thin,” says Dr. Dahle. “Once you have a reasonable plan, all you have to do is fund it adequately by saving 20% of your gross income, and a doctor will easily retire as a multimillionaire.”

Blind Spot #4

Bad investment strategies. Thirty-six percent of doctors experience their largest financial losses from lousy investments, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Meanwhile, 17% of PCPs and 12% of specialists say they haven’t made any investments at all. That’s a terrible mix of doing the wrong thing and doing a worse thing.

The Fix

Don’t overthink investing, but don’t underthink it either. “As high-income earners, doctors just don’t need to take this high level of risk to reach their financial goals,” Dr. Frey says. A good investment plan doesn’t require you to time the stock market or predict individual stock winners. Consider what Vanguard founder Jack Bogle once said about investing: “Be bored by the process but elated by the outcome.”

Dr. Frey suggests going super-simple: index funds. Ignore investing strategies with actively managed mutual funds or individual stocks, as well as risky alternative investments such as cryptocurrency and angel investments. Everyone assumes doctors have money to burn, and they will push sketchy investment ideas at them. Avoid.

Blind Spot #5

Not taking debt seriously enough. The average medical student debt is $250,000 and can exceed $500,000, says Dr. Soelberg. Many doctors spend the first 10 to 20 years of their careers paying this off. Today’s graduates are paying more than 7% on their loans.

And it’s not just student debt: 39% of physicians carry five or more credit cards, and 34% have mortgages larger than $300,000 (with half of those are more than than $500K), per the Wealth & Debt Report.

The Fix

Treat debt like cancer. It’s a lethal enemy you can’t get rid of right away, but a steady, aggressive, long-term attack will have the best results. Dr. Soelberg suggests allocating the most you can afford per month, whether that’s $1000 or $5000, toward debt. Raise the amount as your income grows. Do the same with your 401k or retirement plan. Whatever is left, you can spend. Five to 10 years later, you will realize, “Wow. I’m debt free.”

Blind Spot #6

Not putting in the work to improve your situation. Seventy-one percent of doctors admit they haven’t done anything to reduce major expenses, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Are you leaving major money on the table?

The Fix

Audit yourself in major areas like housing and taxes. While the average professional may need to put 10% to 20% down on a home, physicians can qualify for physician mortgage loans and can often put down 3% or less, says Dr. Chiang. If you can afford the higher mortgage payment, excess savings earmarked for a larger down payment can be put toward debt or invested.

Another trick, if you’re able, is to seek an area that is less in demand at a higher salary. “Physicians in places like New York City or San Francisco tend to make less than physicians in the Midwest or the South,” Dr. Chiang explains. A colleague of hers moved to rural Pennsylvania, where he made a high salary and had a low cost of living for 3½ years, paid off his student debt, and then relocated to an area where he wanted to live long term.

As for taxes, become familiar with tax law. Research things like, “What is considered a business expense for doctors?” says Brett Mollard, MD, a diagnostic radiologist who provides financial advice to younger physicians. “What will your estimated total tax burden be at the end of the year? Will you need to make extra payments to prevent owing a large sum of money from underpaying or to avoid tax penalties?”

Blind Spot #7

Living like a rock star on a doctor’s income. Getting caught up in trying to live the same lifestyle as your colleagues is a classic bear trap. “Sitting in the doctor’s lounge, it’s so crazy,” Dr. Soelberg says. He describes conversations like, “‘Where did you go on your trip?’ ‘What new toys are you buying?’” There’s pressure to live up to an image of what a doctor’s life is supposed to look like before you’ve sorted the basic things like paying off debt.

The Fix

Live like a resident even if you haven’t been one for years, at least until you’re in a better financial position. “You’re already used to living a life of lower means, and you’re an expert when it comes to delaying gratification,” says Dr. Mollard. “Do it a little longer.” Live frugally and spend only on things that bring you joy. “A lot of physicians are trying to be really rich in all areas of their life instead of the ones that actually matter to them,” Dr. Soelberg says. Identify what’s important to you and only splurge on that.

Blind Spot #8

Never asking for help. The right financial planner can provide expert help. Emphasis on right. “Doctors can be very trusting of other professionals, even when they should not be,” says Dr. Dahle. He notes that in financial services, many people masquerade as knowledgeable advisors who are really just salespeople. While legitimate financial advisors strive to make their clients money, they are also ultimately out to line their pockets and love to work with physician salaries. Thus, doctors can end up working with financial planners that don’t specifically understand their situations or end up taking too much from their clients.

The Fix

Find a planner who specializes in, or at least understands, physicians. Ask them how they make money, says Dr. Chiang. If someone hesitates to tell you about their fee structure or if it sounds like a lot, shop around and ask colleagues for recommendations.

“Ultimately, the path to wealth is to create and grow the margin between what you make and what you spend,” says Dr. Frey. Throw some investing into the mix and physicians can set themselves up on a path for a stress-free financial life.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The average physician makes $352,000, and some earn well into the $500,000s. So, doctors don’t have to worry about money, right?

You know the answer to that.

One thing all physicians have in common about money, says James M. Dahle, MD, FACEP, founder of The White Coat Investor, is that they don’t receive any training in business, personal finance, or investing throughout their schooling or careers unless they seek it out. This leaves many unprepared to make the best investing and money-saving decisions, while others get too frustrated about their lack of knowledge to even dip their toe into the investing pool.

Exhibit A: Four out of 10 physicians have a net worth below $1 million, according to the Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2023. Elizabeth Chiang, MD, PhD, an oculoplastic surgeon and a physician money coach at Grow Your Wealthy Mindset, notes that many of those doctors are over age 65, “which means they essentially can’t retire.”

And that’s just one pain point.

Physicians have money concerns specific to their profession and background. Luckily, some fellow doctors also serve as financial and wealth advisors just for other doctors. We sought out a few to get their advice--and fixes--for common physician blind spots.

Blind Spot #1

The early lean years skew doctors’ money outlook. “We have an extended training period, which commonly consists of taking on a large amount of debt, followed by 3 to 8 years of being paid a modest salary, and then finally a large boost in income,” explains Dr. Chiang. This can lay a shaky foundation for the earning years to come, and as a result, a lot of doctors just don’t think about money in healthy ways. Once their incomes increase, physicians may be surprised, for example, that making a multiple six-figure salary means paying six figures in taxes.

The Fix

Treat financial health like physical health. That means money cannot be a taboo subject. “The misguided mindset is that we didn’t become physicians to make money, we did it to help people,” explains Jordan Frey, MD, creator of the blog, The Prudent Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Frey acknowledges that the desire to help is certainly true. But the result is a false idea that “to think about our personal finances makes us a worse doctor.”

Blind Spot #2

Because doctors know a lot about one thing (medicine), they might assume they know a lot about everything (such as investing). “Totally different fields with a different language and different way to think about it,” Dahle explains. This overconfidence could lead to some negligent or risky financial decisions.

The Fix

Educate yourself. There are several books on personal finance and investing written by physicians for physicians. Dr. Chiang recommends The Physician Philosopher’s Guide to Personal Finance, by James Turner, MD; Financial Freedom Rx, by Chirag Shah, MD, and Jayanth Sridhar, MD; and The Physician’s Guide to Finance, by Nicholas Christian and Amanda Christian, MD. There are also podcasts, blogs, and courses to help educate doctors on finance, such as the Fire Your Financial Advisor course by The White Coat Investor.

Blind Spot #3

Undersaving. Retirement saving is one thing, but 24% of doctors say they don’t even put money away in a taxable savings account, according to the Wealth & Debt Report.

Cobin Soelberg, MD, JD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and founder and principal advisor with Greeley Wealth Management, is the treasurer of his anesthesiology group. “I get to see every month how much people are saving, and even on an anesthesiologist salary, where everyone’s making about $400,000 a year, a lot of people are not saving anything, which is crazy.”

Undersaving can be both a time issue and a mindset one.

Time: Doctors often start investing in their retirement accounts later than the average professional, says Dr. Chiang. “A lot of physicians will max out their 401k or 403b,” she explains. “But if you’re putting in $20,000 a year and only starting when you’re in your early 30s, that’s not enough to get you to retirement.”

Mindset: Doctors also see people of all ages who are sick, dying, and injured. “They all know someone who worked hard and saved and then dropped dead at 55,” explains Dr. Dahle. This, he says, can lead to a bit of a “you only live once” attitude that prioritizes spending over saving.

The Fix

Shoot for 20%. If you can’t save 20% of your gross now, strive to get to that point. Think of it as telling a patient they have to change their behavior or trouble will come - not if, but when. “Develop a written investing plan and then stick with it through thick and thin,” says Dr. Dahle. “Once you have a reasonable plan, all you have to do is fund it adequately by saving 20% of your gross income, and a doctor will easily retire as a multimillionaire.”

Blind Spot #4

Bad investment strategies. Thirty-six percent of doctors experience their largest financial losses from lousy investments, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Meanwhile, 17% of PCPs and 12% of specialists say they haven’t made any investments at all. That’s a terrible mix of doing the wrong thing and doing a worse thing.

The Fix

Don’t overthink investing, but don’t underthink it either. “As high-income earners, doctors just don’t need to take this high level of risk to reach their financial goals,” Dr. Frey says. A good investment plan doesn’t require you to time the stock market or predict individual stock winners. Consider what Vanguard founder Jack Bogle once said about investing: “Be bored by the process but elated by the outcome.”

Dr. Frey suggests going super-simple: index funds. Ignore investing strategies with actively managed mutual funds or individual stocks, as well as risky alternative investments such as cryptocurrency and angel investments. Everyone assumes doctors have money to burn, and they will push sketchy investment ideas at them. Avoid.

Blind Spot #5

Not taking debt seriously enough. The average medical student debt is $250,000 and can exceed $500,000, says Dr. Soelberg. Many doctors spend the first 10 to 20 years of their careers paying this off. Today’s graduates are paying more than 7% on their loans.

And it’s not just student debt: 39% of physicians carry five or more credit cards, and 34% have mortgages larger than $300,000 (with half of those are more than than $500K), per the Wealth & Debt Report.

The Fix

Treat debt like cancer. It’s a lethal enemy you can’t get rid of right away, but a steady, aggressive, long-term attack will have the best results. Dr. Soelberg suggests allocating the most you can afford per month, whether that’s $1000 or $5000, toward debt. Raise the amount as your income grows. Do the same with your 401k or retirement plan. Whatever is left, you can spend. Five to 10 years later, you will realize, “Wow. I’m debt free.”

Blind Spot #6

Not putting in the work to improve your situation. Seventy-one percent of doctors admit they haven’t done anything to reduce major expenses, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Are you leaving major money on the table?

The Fix

Audit yourself in major areas like housing and taxes. While the average professional may need to put 10% to 20% down on a home, physicians can qualify for physician mortgage loans and can often put down 3% or less, says Dr. Chiang. If you can afford the higher mortgage payment, excess savings earmarked for a larger down payment can be put toward debt or invested.

Another trick, if you’re able, is to seek an area that is less in demand at a higher salary. “Physicians in places like New York City or San Francisco tend to make less than physicians in the Midwest or the South,” Dr. Chiang explains. A colleague of hers moved to rural Pennsylvania, where he made a high salary and had a low cost of living for 3½ years, paid off his student debt, and then relocated to an area where he wanted to live long term.

As for taxes, become familiar with tax law. Research things like, “What is considered a business expense for doctors?” says Brett Mollard, MD, a diagnostic radiologist who provides financial advice to younger physicians. “What will your estimated total tax burden be at the end of the year? Will you need to make extra payments to prevent owing a large sum of money from underpaying or to avoid tax penalties?”

Blind Spot #7

Living like a rock star on a doctor’s income. Getting caught up in trying to live the same lifestyle as your colleagues is a classic bear trap. “Sitting in the doctor’s lounge, it’s so crazy,” Dr. Soelberg says. He describes conversations like, “‘Where did you go on your trip?’ ‘What new toys are you buying?’” There’s pressure to live up to an image of what a doctor’s life is supposed to look like before you’ve sorted the basic things like paying off debt.

The Fix

Live like a resident even if you haven’t been one for years, at least until you’re in a better financial position. “You’re already used to living a life of lower means, and you’re an expert when it comes to delaying gratification,” says Dr. Mollard. “Do it a little longer.” Live frugally and spend only on things that bring you joy. “A lot of physicians are trying to be really rich in all areas of their life instead of the ones that actually matter to them,” Dr. Soelberg says. Identify what’s important to you and only splurge on that.

Blind Spot #8

Never asking for help. The right financial planner can provide expert help. Emphasis on right. “Doctors can be very trusting of other professionals, even when they should not be,” says Dr. Dahle. He notes that in financial services, many people masquerade as knowledgeable advisors who are really just salespeople. While legitimate financial advisors strive to make their clients money, they are also ultimately out to line their pockets and love to work with physician salaries. Thus, doctors can end up working with financial planners that don’t specifically understand their situations or end up taking too much from their clients.

The Fix

Find a planner who specializes in, or at least understands, physicians. Ask them how they make money, says Dr. Chiang. If someone hesitates to tell you about their fee structure or if it sounds like a lot, shop around and ask colleagues for recommendations.

“Ultimately, the path to wealth is to create and grow the margin between what you make and what you spend,” says Dr. Frey. Throw some investing into the mix and physicians can set themselves up on a path for a stress-free financial life.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The average physician makes $352,000, and some earn well into the $500,000s. So, doctors don’t have to worry about money, right?

You know the answer to that.

One thing all physicians have in common about money, says James M. Dahle, MD, FACEP, founder of The White Coat Investor, is that they don’t receive any training in business, personal finance, or investing throughout their schooling or careers unless they seek it out. This leaves many unprepared to make the best investing and money-saving decisions, while others get too frustrated about their lack of knowledge to even dip their toe into the investing pool.

Exhibit A: Four out of 10 physicians have a net worth below $1 million, according to the Medscape Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2023. Elizabeth Chiang, MD, PhD, an oculoplastic surgeon and a physician money coach at Grow Your Wealthy Mindset, notes that many of those doctors are over age 65, “which means they essentially can’t retire.”

And that’s just one pain point.

Physicians have money concerns specific to their profession and background. Luckily, some fellow doctors also serve as financial and wealth advisors just for other doctors. We sought out a few to get their advice--and fixes--for common physician blind spots.

Blind Spot #1

The early lean years skew doctors’ money outlook. “We have an extended training period, which commonly consists of taking on a large amount of debt, followed by 3 to 8 years of being paid a modest salary, and then finally a large boost in income,” explains Dr. Chiang. This can lay a shaky foundation for the earning years to come, and as a result, a lot of doctors just don’t think about money in healthy ways. Once their incomes increase, physicians may be surprised, for example, that making a multiple six-figure salary means paying six figures in taxes.

The Fix

Treat financial health like physical health. That means money cannot be a taboo subject. “The misguided mindset is that we didn’t become physicians to make money, we did it to help people,” explains Jordan Frey, MD, creator of the blog, The Prudent Plastic Surgeon.

Dr. Frey acknowledges that the desire to help is certainly true. But the result is a false idea that “to think about our personal finances makes us a worse doctor.”

Blind Spot #2

Because doctors know a lot about one thing (medicine), they might assume they know a lot about everything (such as investing). “Totally different fields with a different language and different way to think about it,” Dahle explains. This overconfidence could lead to some negligent or risky financial decisions.

The Fix

Educate yourself. There are several books on personal finance and investing written by physicians for physicians. Dr. Chiang recommends The Physician Philosopher’s Guide to Personal Finance, by James Turner, MD; Financial Freedom Rx, by Chirag Shah, MD, and Jayanth Sridhar, MD; and The Physician’s Guide to Finance, by Nicholas Christian and Amanda Christian, MD. There are also podcasts, blogs, and courses to help educate doctors on finance, such as the Fire Your Financial Advisor course by The White Coat Investor.

Blind Spot #3

Undersaving. Retirement saving is one thing, but 24% of doctors say they don’t even put money away in a taxable savings account, according to the Wealth & Debt Report.

Cobin Soelberg, MD, JD, a board-certified anesthesiologist and founder and principal advisor with Greeley Wealth Management, is the treasurer of his anesthesiology group. “I get to see every month how much people are saving, and even on an anesthesiologist salary, where everyone’s making about $400,000 a year, a lot of people are not saving anything, which is crazy.”

Undersaving can be both a time issue and a mindset one.

Time: Doctors often start investing in their retirement accounts later than the average professional, says Dr. Chiang. “A lot of physicians will max out their 401k or 403b,” she explains. “But if you’re putting in $20,000 a year and only starting when you’re in your early 30s, that’s not enough to get you to retirement.”

Mindset: Doctors also see people of all ages who are sick, dying, and injured. “They all know someone who worked hard and saved and then dropped dead at 55,” explains Dr. Dahle. This, he says, can lead to a bit of a “you only live once” attitude that prioritizes spending over saving.

The Fix

Shoot for 20%. If you can’t save 20% of your gross now, strive to get to that point. Think of it as telling a patient they have to change their behavior or trouble will come - not if, but when. “Develop a written investing plan and then stick with it through thick and thin,” says Dr. Dahle. “Once you have a reasonable plan, all you have to do is fund it adequately by saving 20% of your gross income, and a doctor will easily retire as a multimillionaire.”

Blind Spot #4

Bad investment strategies. Thirty-six percent of doctors experience their largest financial losses from lousy investments, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Meanwhile, 17% of PCPs and 12% of specialists say they haven’t made any investments at all. That’s a terrible mix of doing the wrong thing and doing a worse thing.

The Fix

Don’t overthink investing, but don’t underthink it either. “As high-income earners, doctors just don’t need to take this high level of risk to reach their financial goals,” Dr. Frey says. A good investment plan doesn’t require you to time the stock market or predict individual stock winners. Consider what Vanguard founder Jack Bogle once said about investing: “Be bored by the process but elated by the outcome.”

Dr. Frey suggests going super-simple: index funds. Ignore investing strategies with actively managed mutual funds or individual stocks, as well as risky alternative investments such as cryptocurrency and angel investments. Everyone assumes doctors have money to burn, and they will push sketchy investment ideas at them. Avoid.

Blind Spot #5

Not taking debt seriously enough. The average medical student debt is $250,000 and can exceed $500,000, says Dr. Soelberg. Many doctors spend the first 10 to 20 years of their careers paying this off. Today’s graduates are paying more than 7% on their loans.

And it’s not just student debt: 39% of physicians carry five or more credit cards, and 34% have mortgages larger than $300,000 (with half of those are more than than $500K), per the Wealth & Debt Report.

The Fix

Treat debt like cancer. It’s a lethal enemy you can’t get rid of right away, but a steady, aggressive, long-term attack will have the best results. Dr. Soelberg suggests allocating the most you can afford per month, whether that’s $1000 or $5000, toward debt. Raise the amount as your income grows. Do the same with your 401k or retirement plan. Whatever is left, you can spend. Five to 10 years later, you will realize, “Wow. I’m debt free.”

Blind Spot #6

Not putting in the work to improve your situation. Seventy-one percent of doctors admit they haven’t done anything to reduce major expenses, according to the Wealth & Debt Report. Are you leaving major money on the table?

The Fix

Audit yourself in major areas like housing and taxes. While the average professional may need to put 10% to 20% down on a home, physicians can qualify for physician mortgage loans and can often put down 3% or less, says Dr. Chiang. If you can afford the higher mortgage payment, excess savings earmarked for a larger down payment can be put toward debt or invested.

Another trick, if you’re able, is to seek an area that is less in demand at a higher salary. “Physicians in places like New York City or San Francisco tend to make less than physicians in the Midwest or the South,” Dr. Chiang explains. A colleague of hers moved to rural Pennsylvania, where he made a high salary and had a low cost of living for 3½ years, paid off his student debt, and then relocated to an area where he wanted to live long term.

As for taxes, become familiar with tax law. Research things like, “What is considered a business expense for doctors?” says Brett Mollard, MD, a diagnostic radiologist who provides financial advice to younger physicians. “What will your estimated total tax burden be at the end of the year? Will you need to make extra payments to prevent owing a large sum of money from underpaying or to avoid tax penalties?”

Blind Spot #7

Living like a rock star on a doctor’s income. Getting caught up in trying to live the same lifestyle as your colleagues is a classic bear trap. “Sitting in the doctor’s lounge, it’s so crazy,” Dr. Soelberg says. He describes conversations like, “‘Where did you go on your trip?’ ‘What new toys are you buying?’” There’s pressure to live up to an image of what a doctor’s life is supposed to look like before you’ve sorted the basic things like paying off debt.

The Fix

Live like a resident even if you haven’t been one for years, at least until you’re in a better financial position. “You’re already used to living a life of lower means, and you’re an expert when it comes to delaying gratification,” says Dr. Mollard. “Do it a little longer.” Live frugally and spend only on things that bring you joy. “A lot of physicians are trying to be really rich in all areas of their life instead of the ones that actually matter to them,” Dr. Soelberg says. Identify what’s important to you and only splurge on that.

Blind Spot #8

Never asking for help. The right financial planner can provide expert help. Emphasis on right. “Doctors can be very trusting of other professionals, even when they should not be,” says Dr. Dahle. He notes that in financial services, many people masquerade as knowledgeable advisors who are really just salespeople. While legitimate financial advisors strive to make their clients money, they are also ultimately out to line their pockets and love to work with physician salaries. Thus, doctors can end up working with financial planners that don’t specifically understand their situations or end up taking too much from their clients.

The Fix

Find a planner who specializes in, or at least understands, physicians. Ask them how they make money, says Dr. Chiang. If someone hesitates to tell you about their fee structure or if it sounds like a lot, shop around and ask colleagues for recommendations.

“Ultimately, the path to wealth is to create and grow the margin between what you make and what you spend,” says Dr. Frey. Throw some investing into the mix and physicians can set themselves up on a path for a stress-free financial life.


A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physician burnout persists even as the height of the COVID-19 crisis fades farther into the rear-view mirror. The causes for the sadness, stress, and frustration among doctors vary, but the effects are universal and often debilitating: exhaustion, emotional detachment, lethargy, feeling useless, and lacking purpose. 

When surveyed, physicians pointed to many systemic solutions for burnout in Medscape’s Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, such as a need for greater compensation, more manageable workloads and schedules, and more support staff. But for many doctors, these fixes may be years if not decades away. Equally important are strategies for relieving burnout symptoms now, especially as we head into a busy holiday season.

Because not every stress-relief practice works for everyone, it’s crucial to try various methods until you find something that makes a difference for you, said Christine Gibson, MD, a family physician and trauma therapist in Calgary, Alta., and author of The Modern Trauma Toolkit.

“Every person should have a toolkit of the things that bring them out of the psychological and physical distress that dysregulates their nervous system,” said Dr. Gibson. 

Once you learn the personal ways to alleviate your specific brand of burnout, you can start working on systemic changes that might help the culture of medicine overall.

One or even more of these more unusual burnout prescriptions may be key to your personal emotional regulation and mental wellness.
 

Symptoms speak louder than words

It seems obvious, but if you aren’t aware that what you’re feeling is burnout, you probably aren’t going to find effective steps to relieve it. Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, is a psychiatrist who treats health care professionals, including frontline workers during the height of the pandemic. But even as a burnout expert, she admits that she misses the signs in herself. 

“I was fighting constant fatigue, falling asleep the minute I got home from work every day, but I thought a B12 shot would solve all my problems. I didn’t realize I was having symptoms of burnout until my own therapist told me,” said Dr. Gold. “As doctors, we spend so much time focusing on other people that we don’t necessarily notice very much in ourselves – usually once it starts to impact our job.”

Practices like meditation and mindfulness can help you delve into your feelings and emotions and notice how you’re doing. But you may also need to ask spouses, partners, and friends and family – or better yet, a mental health professional – if they notice that you seem burnt out. 
 

Practice ‘in the moment’ relief 

Sometimes, walking away at the moment of stress helps like when stepping away from a heated argument. “Step out of a frustrating staff meeting to go to the bathroom and splash your face,” said Eran Magan, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and founder and CEO of the suicide prevention system EarlyAlert.me. “Tell a patient you need to check something in the next room, so you have time to take a breath.” 

Dr. Magan recommended finding techniques that help lower acute stress while it’s actually happening. First, find a way to escape or excuse yourself from the event, and when possible, stop situations that are actively upsetting or triggering in their tracks. 

Next, recharge by doing something that helps you feel better, like looking at a cute video of your child or grandchild or closing your eyes and taking a deep breath. You can also try to “catch” good feelings from someone else, said Dr. Magan. Ask someone about a trip, vacation, holiday, or pleasant event. “Ask a colleague about something that makes [them] happy,” he said. “Happiness can be infectious too.”
 

Burnout is also in the body

“Body psychotherapy” or somatic therapy is a treatment that focuses on how emotions appear within your body. Dr. Gibson said it’s a valuable tool for addressing trauma and a mainstay in many a medical career; it’s useful to help physicians learn to “befriend” their nervous system. 

Somatic therapy exercises involve things like body scanning, scanning for physical sensations; conscious breathing, connecting to each inhale and exhale; grounding your weight by releasing tension through your feet, doing a total body stretch; or releasing shoulder and neck tension by consciously relaxing each of these muscle groups.

“We spend our whole day in sympathetic tone; our amygdala’s are firing, telling us that we’re in danger,” said Dr. Gibson. “We actually have to practice getting into and spending time in our parasympathetic nervous system to restore the balance in our autonomic nervous system.” 

Somatic therapy includes a wide array of exercises that help reconnect you to your body through calming or activation. The movements release tension, ground you, and restore balance. 
 

Bite-sized tools for well-being

Because of the prevalence of physician burnout, there’s been a groundswell of researchers and organizations who have turned their focus toward improving the well-being in the health care workforce. 

One such effort comes from the Duke Center for the Advancement of Well-being Science, which “camouflages” well-being tools as continuing education credits to make them accessible for busy, stressed, and overworked physicians.

“They’re called bite-sized tools for well-being, and they have actual evidence behind them,” said Dr. Gold. For example, she said, one tools is a text program called Three Good Things that encourages physicians to send a text listing three positive things that happened during the day. The exercise lasts 15 days, and texters have access to others’ answers as well. After 3 months, participants’ baseline depression, gratitude, and life satisfaction had all “significantly improved.”

“It feels almost ridiculous that that could work, but it does,” said Dr. Gold. “I’ve had patients push back and say: ‘Well, isn’t that toxic positivity?’ But really what it is is dialectics. It’s not saying there’s only positive; it’s just making you realize there is more than just the negative.”

These and other short interventions focus on concepts such as joy, humor, awe, engagement, and self-kindness to build resilience and help physicians recover from burnout symptoms. 
 

Cognitive restructuring could work

Cognitive restructuring is a therapeutic process of learning new ways of interpreting and responding to people and situations. It helps you change the “filter” through which you interact with your environment. Dr. Gibson said it’s a tool to use with care after other modes of therapy that help you understand your patterns and how they developed because of how you view and understand the world. 

“The message of [cognitive-behavioral therapy] or cognitive restructuring is there’s something wrong with the way you’re thinking, and we need to change it or fix it, but in a traumatic system [like health care], you’re thinking has been an adaptive process related to the harm in the environment you’re in,” said Dr. Gibson. 

“So, if you [jump straight to cognitive restructuring before other types of therapy], then we just gaslight ourselves into believing that there’s something wrong with us, that we haven’t adapted sufficiently to an environment that’s actually harmful.”
 

Strive for a few systemic changes

Systemic changes can be small ones within your own sphere. For example, Dr. Magan said, work toward making little tweaks to the flow of your day that will increase calm and reduce frustration. 

“Make a ‘bug list,’ little, regular demands that drain your energy, and discuss them with your colleagues and supervisors to see if they can be improved,” he said. Examples include everyday frustrations like having unsolicited visitors popping into your office, scheduling complex patients too late in the day, or having a computer freeze whenever you access patient charts.

Though not always financially feasible, affecting real change and finding relief from all these insidious bugs can improve your mental health and burnout symptoms.

“Physicians tend to work extremely hard in order to keep holding together a system that is often not inherently sustainable, like the fascia of a body under tremendous strain,” said Dr. Magan. “Sometimes the brave thing to do is to refuse to continue being the lynchpin and let things break, so the system will have to start improving itself, rather than demanding more and more of the people in it.”

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

Physician burnout persists even as the height of the COVID-19 crisis fades farther into the rear-view mirror. The causes for the sadness, stress, and frustration among doctors vary, but the effects are universal and often debilitating: exhaustion, emotional detachment, lethargy, feeling useless, and lacking purpose. 

When surveyed, physicians pointed to many systemic solutions for burnout in Medscape’s Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, such as a need for greater compensation, more manageable workloads and schedules, and more support staff. But for many doctors, these fixes may be years if not decades away. Equally important are strategies for relieving burnout symptoms now, especially as we head into a busy holiday season.

Because not every stress-relief practice works for everyone, it’s crucial to try various methods until you find something that makes a difference for you, said Christine Gibson, MD, a family physician and trauma therapist in Calgary, Alta., and author of The Modern Trauma Toolkit.

“Every person should have a toolkit of the things that bring them out of the psychological and physical distress that dysregulates their nervous system,” said Dr. Gibson. 

Once you learn the personal ways to alleviate your specific brand of burnout, you can start working on systemic changes that might help the culture of medicine overall.

One or even more of these more unusual burnout prescriptions may be key to your personal emotional regulation and mental wellness.
 

Symptoms speak louder than words

It seems obvious, but if you aren’t aware that what you’re feeling is burnout, you probably aren’t going to find effective steps to relieve it. Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, is a psychiatrist who treats health care professionals, including frontline workers during the height of the pandemic. But even as a burnout expert, she admits that she misses the signs in herself. 

“I was fighting constant fatigue, falling asleep the minute I got home from work every day, but I thought a B12 shot would solve all my problems. I didn’t realize I was having symptoms of burnout until my own therapist told me,” said Dr. Gold. “As doctors, we spend so much time focusing on other people that we don’t necessarily notice very much in ourselves – usually once it starts to impact our job.”

Practices like meditation and mindfulness can help you delve into your feelings and emotions and notice how you’re doing. But you may also need to ask spouses, partners, and friends and family – or better yet, a mental health professional – if they notice that you seem burnt out. 
 

Practice ‘in the moment’ relief 

Sometimes, walking away at the moment of stress helps like when stepping away from a heated argument. “Step out of a frustrating staff meeting to go to the bathroom and splash your face,” said Eran Magan, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and founder and CEO of the suicide prevention system EarlyAlert.me. “Tell a patient you need to check something in the next room, so you have time to take a breath.” 

Dr. Magan recommended finding techniques that help lower acute stress while it’s actually happening. First, find a way to escape or excuse yourself from the event, and when possible, stop situations that are actively upsetting or triggering in their tracks. 

Next, recharge by doing something that helps you feel better, like looking at a cute video of your child or grandchild or closing your eyes and taking a deep breath. You can also try to “catch” good feelings from someone else, said Dr. Magan. Ask someone about a trip, vacation, holiday, or pleasant event. “Ask a colleague about something that makes [them] happy,” he said. “Happiness can be infectious too.”
 

Burnout is also in the body

“Body psychotherapy” or somatic therapy is a treatment that focuses on how emotions appear within your body. Dr. Gibson said it’s a valuable tool for addressing trauma and a mainstay in many a medical career; it’s useful to help physicians learn to “befriend” their nervous system. 

Somatic therapy exercises involve things like body scanning, scanning for physical sensations; conscious breathing, connecting to each inhale and exhale; grounding your weight by releasing tension through your feet, doing a total body stretch; or releasing shoulder and neck tension by consciously relaxing each of these muscle groups.

“We spend our whole day in sympathetic tone; our amygdala’s are firing, telling us that we’re in danger,” said Dr. Gibson. “We actually have to practice getting into and spending time in our parasympathetic nervous system to restore the balance in our autonomic nervous system.” 

Somatic therapy includes a wide array of exercises that help reconnect you to your body through calming or activation. The movements release tension, ground you, and restore balance. 
 

Bite-sized tools for well-being

Because of the prevalence of physician burnout, there’s been a groundswell of researchers and organizations who have turned their focus toward improving the well-being in the health care workforce. 

One such effort comes from the Duke Center for the Advancement of Well-being Science, which “camouflages” well-being tools as continuing education credits to make them accessible for busy, stressed, and overworked physicians.

“They’re called bite-sized tools for well-being, and they have actual evidence behind them,” said Dr. Gold. For example, she said, one tools is a text program called Three Good Things that encourages physicians to send a text listing three positive things that happened during the day. The exercise lasts 15 days, and texters have access to others’ answers as well. After 3 months, participants’ baseline depression, gratitude, and life satisfaction had all “significantly improved.”

“It feels almost ridiculous that that could work, but it does,” said Dr. Gold. “I’ve had patients push back and say: ‘Well, isn’t that toxic positivity?’ But really what it is is dialectics. It’s not saying there’s only positive; it’s just making you realize there is more than just the negative.”

These and other short interventions focus on concepts such as joy, humor, awe, engagement, and self-kindness to build resilience and help physicians recover from burnout symptoms. 
 

Cognitive restructuring could work

Cognitive restructuring is a therapeutic process of learning new ways of interpreting and responding to people and situations. It helps you change the “filter” through which you interact with your environment. Dr. Gibson said it’s a tool to use with care after other modes of therapy that help you understand your patterns and how they developed because of how you view and understand the world. 

“The message of [cognitive-behavioral therapy] or cognitive restructuring is there’s something wrong with the way you’re thinking, and we need to change it or fix it, but in a traumatic system [like health care], you’re thinking has been an adaptive process related to the harm in the environment you’re in,” said Dr. Gibson. 

“So, if you [jump straight to cognitive restructuring before other types of therapy], then we just gaslight ourselves into believing that there’s something wrong with us, that we haven’t adapted sufficiently to an environment that’s actually harmful.”
 

Strive for a few systemic changes

Systemic changes can be small ones within your own sphere. For example, Dr. Magan said, work toward making little tweaks to the flow of your day that will increase calm and reduce frustration. 

“Make a ‘bug list,’ little, regular demands that drain your energy, and discuss them with your colleagues and supervisors to see if they can be improved,” he said. Examples include everyday frustrations like having unsolicited visitors popping into your office, scheduling complex patients too late in the day, or having a computer freeze whenever you access patient charts.

Though not always financially feasible, affecting real change and finding relief from all these insidious bugs can improve your mental health and burnout symptoms.

“Physicians tend to work extremely hard in order to keep holding together a system that is often not inherently sustainable, like the fascia of a body under tremendous strain,” said Dr. Magan. “Sometimes the brave thing to do is to refuse to continue being the lynchpin and let things break, so the system will have to start improving itself, rather than demanding more and more of the people in it.”

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

Physician burnout persists even as the height of the COVID-19 crisis fades farther into the rear-view mirror. The causes for the sadness, stress, and frustration among doctors vary, but the effects are universal and often debilitating: exhaustion, emotional detachment, lethargy, feeling useless, and lacking purpose. 

When surveyed, physicians pointed to many systemic solutions for burnout in Medscape’s Physician Burnout & Depression Report 2023, such as a need for greater compensation, more manageable workloads and schedules, and more support staff. But for many doctors, these fixes may be years if not decades away. Equally important are strategies for relieving burnout symptoms now, especially as we head into a busy holiday season.

Because not every stress-relief practice works for everyone, it’s crucial to try various methods until you find something that makes a difference for you, said Christine Gibson, MD, a family physician and trauma therapist in Calgary, Alta., and author of The Modern Trauma Toolkit.

“Every person should have a toolkit of the things that bring them out of the psychological and physical distress that dysregulates their nervous system,” said Dr. Gibson. 

Once you learn the personal ways to alleviate your specific brand of burnout, you can start working on systemic changes that might help the culture of medicine overall.

One or even more of these more unusual burnout prescriptions may be key to your personal emotional regulation and mental wellness.
 

Symptoms speak louder than words

It seems obvious, but if you aren’t aware that what you’re feeling is burnout, you probably aren’t going to find effective steps to relieve it. Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, is a psychiatrist who treats health care professionals, including frontline workers during the height of the pandemic. But even as a burnout expert, she admits that she misses the signs in herself. 

“I was fighting constant fatigue, falling asleep the minute I got home from work every day, but I thought a B12 shot would solve all my problems. I didn’t realize I was having symptoms of burnout until my own therapist told me,” said Dr. Gold. “As doctors, we spend so much time focusing on other people that we don’t necessarily notice very much in ourselves – usually once it starts to impact our job.”

Practices like meditation and mindfulness can help you delve into your feelings and emotions and notice how you’re doing. But you may also need to ask spouses, partners, and friends and family – or better yet, a mental health professional – if they notice that you seem burnt out. 
 

Practice ‘in the moment’ relief 

Sometimes, walking away at the moment of stress helps like when stepping away from a heated argument. “Step out of a frustrating staff meeting to go to the bathroom and splash your face,” said Eran Magan, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and founder and CEO of the suicide prevention system EarlyAlert.me. “Tell a patient you need to check something in the next room, so you have time to take a breath.” 

Dr. Magan recommended finding techniques that help lower acute stress while it’s actually happening. First, find a way to escape or excuse yourself from the event, and when possible, stop situations that are actively upsetting or triggering in their tracks. 

Next, recharge by doing something that helps you feel better, like looking at a cute video of your child or grandchild or closing your eyes and taking a deep breath. You can also try to “catch” good feelings from someone else, said Dr. Magan. Ask someone about a trip, vacation, holiday, or pleasant event. “Ask a colleague about something that makes [them] happy,” he said. “Happiness can be infectious too.”
 

Burnout is also in the body

“Body psychotherapy” or somatic therapy is a treatment that focuses on how emotions appear within your body. Dr. Gibson said it’s a valuable tool for addressing trauma and a mainstay in many a medical career; it’s useful to help physicians learn to “befriend” their nervous system. 

Somatic therapy exercises involve things like body scanning, scanning for physical sensations; conscious breathing, connecting to each inhale and exhale; grounding your weight by releasing tension through your feet, doing a total body stretch; or releasing shoulder and neck tension by consciously relaxing each of these muscle groups.

“We spend our whole day in sympathetic tone; our amygdala’s are firing, telling us that we’re in danger,” said Dr. Gibson. “We actually have to practice getting into and spending time in our parasympathetic nervous system to restore the balance in our autonomic nervous system.” 

Somatic therapy includes a wide array of exercises that help reconnect you to your body through calming or activation. The movements release tension, ground you, and restore balance. 
 

Bite-sized tools for well-being

Because of the prevalence of physician burnout, there’s been a groundswell of researchers and organizations who have turned their focus toward improving the well-being in the health care workforce. 

One such effort comes from the Duke Center for the Advancement of Well-being Science, which “camouflages” well-being tools as continuing education credits to make them accessible for busy, stressed, and overworked physicians.

“They’re called bite-sized tools for well-being, and they have actual evidence behind them,” said Dr. Gold. For example, she said, one tools is a text program called Three Good Things that encourages physicians to send a text listing three positive things that happened during the day. The exercise lasts 15 days, and texters have access to others’ answers as well. After 3 months, participants’ baseline depression, gratitude, and life satisfaction had all “significantly improved.”

“It feels almost ridiculous that that could work, but it does,” said Dr. Gold. “I’ve had patients push back and say: ‘Well, isn’t that toxic positivity?’ But really what it is is dialectics. It’s not saying there’s only positive; it’s just making you realize there is more than just the negative.”

These and other short interventions focus on concepts such as joy, humor, awe, engagement, and self-kindness to build resilience and help physicians recover from burnout symptoms. 
 

Cognitive restructuring could work

Cognitive restructuring is a therapeutic process of learning new ways of interpreting and responding to people and situations. It helps you change the “filter” through which you interact with your environment. Dr. Gibson said it’s a tool to use with care after other modes of therapy that help you understand your patterns and how they developed because of how you view and understand the world. 

“The message of [cognitive-behavioral therapy] or cognitive restructuring is there’s something wrong with the way you’re thinking, and we need to change it or fix it, but in a traumatic system [like health care], you’re thinking has been an adaptive process related to the harm in the environment you’re in,” said Dr. Gibson. 

“So, if you [jump straight to cognitive restructuring before other types of therapy], then we just gaslight ourselves into believing that there’s something wrong with us, that we haven’t adapted sufficiently to an environment that’s actually harmful.”
 

Strive for a few systemic changes

Systemic changes can be small ones within your own sphere. For example, Dr. Magan said, work toward making little tweaks to the flow of your day that will increase calm and reduce frustration. 

“Make a ‘bug list,’ little, regular demands that drain your energy, and discuss them with your colleagues and supervisors to see if they can be improved,” he said. Examples include everyday frustrations like having unsolicited visitors popping into your office, scheduling complex patients too late in the day, or having a computer freeze whenever you access patient charts.

Though not always financially feasible, affecting real change and finding relief from all these insidious bugs can improve your mental health and burnout symptoms.

“Physicians tend to work extremely hard in order to keep holding together a system that is often not inherently sustainable, like the fascia of a body under tremendous strain,” said Dr. Magan. “Sometimes the brave thing to do is to refuse to continue being the lynchpin and let things break, so the system will have to start improving itself, rather than demanding more and more of the people in it.”

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

A novel prognostic tool based on social determinants effectively predicted increased risk of alcohol use relapse in adults who underwent liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease, based on data from 140 individuals.

Alcohol relapse after liver transplant ranges from 4% to as high as 95% among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and better tools are needed to identify those at increased risk, Jiten P. Kothadia, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in a presentation given in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Kothadia and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of the Social Determinant Acuity Tool (S-DAT), which stratified patients in terms of successful post-liver transplant outcomes from excellent (S-DAT scores 0-6) to poor candidates (scores 35-40). The S-DAT categories included cognitive function, mental health, social support, coping skills, financial status, compliance, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, reliability, legal issues, understanding the transplant process, and desire for transplant.

The study population included 140 adults with alcoholic liver disease who underwent a liver transplant between January 2016 and November 2021 at a single center. Before surgery, all patients underwent a thorough psychosocial evaluation using the S-DAT. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, 107 were male, and 67.9% had abstained from alcohol for more than 6 months prior to transplant.

The primary outcome of post-liver transplant alcohol relapse was defined as any alcohol use regardless of the amount or frequency, based on patient interviews or blood or urine tests.

Overall, the rate of relapse was 23.6%; and the rate within a year was 18.6%. In a multivariate analysis, S-DAT score was a significant predictor of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, P = .000). Other independent predictors of relapse were post-LT alcohol treatment (OR 7.11, P = .02), smoking history (OR 0.15, P = .03), and marital status (OR 60.28, P = .000). The area under the receiver operative curves (AUROC) for the S-DAT score to predict alcohol relapse within 1 year after LT was 0.77.

The sensitivity of the S-DAT for predicting relapse risk was 96.2%, and specificity was 40.4%; positive and negative predictive values were 26.9% and 97.9%, respectively.

The high sensitivity and negative predictive values of the S-DAT make it a useful screening tool for identifying patients at low risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant, Dr. Kothadia said in an interview. “Our score will guide risk-based interventions post-LT to reduce post-LT relapse and improve long-term outcomes.”

The findings included only data from a single center, which may limit generalizability, Dr. Kothadia said. The tool is not yet clinically available, he noted.

“We would like to perform external validation of our S-DAT score as it stresses the importance of these psychosocial variables,” and to confirm the findings in larger, multicenter, prospective clinical trials, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Kothadia indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A novel prognostic tool based on social determinants effectively predicted increased risk of alcohol use relapse in adults who underwent liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease, based on data from 140 individuals.

Alcohol relapse after liver transplant ranges from 4% to as high as 95% among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and better tools are needed to identify those at increased risk, Jiten P. Kothadia, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in a presentation given in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Kothadia and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of the Social Determinant Acuity Tool (S-DAT), which stratified patients in terms of successful post-liver transplant outcomes from excellent (S-DAT scores 0-6) to poor candidates (scores 35-40). The S-DAT categories included cognitive function, mental health, social support, coping skills, financial status, compliance, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, reliability, legal issues, understanding the transplant process, and desire for transplant.

The study population included 140 adults with alcoholic liver disease who underwent a liver transplant between January 2016 and November 2021 at a single center. Before surgery, all patients underwent a thorough psychosocial evaluation using the S-DAT. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, 107 were male, and 67.9% had abstained from alcohol for more than 6 months prior to transplant.

The primary outcome of post-liver transplant alcohol relapse was defined as any alcohol use regardless of the amount or frequency, based on patient interviews or blood or urine tests.

Overall, the rate of relapse was 23.6%; and the rate within a year was 18.6%. In a multivariate analysis, S-DAT score was a significant predictor of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, P = .000). Other independent predictors of relapse were post-LT alcohol treatment (OR 7.11, P = .02), smoking history (OR 0.15, P = .03), and marital status (OR 60.28, P = .000). The area under the receiver operative curves (AUROC) for the S-DAT score to predict alcohol relapse within 1 year after LT was 0.77.

The sensitivity of the S-DAT for predicting relapse risk was 96.2%, and specificity was 40.4%; positive and negative predictive values were 26.9% and 97.9%, respectively.

The high sensitivity and negative predictive values of the S-DAT make it a useful screening tool for identifying patients at low risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant, Dr. Kothadia said in an interview. “Our score will guide risk-based interventions post-LT to reduce post-LT relapse and improve long-term outcomes.”

The findings included only data from a single center, which may limit generalizability, Dr. Kothadia said. The tool is not yet clinically available, he noted.

“We would like to perform external validation of our S-DAT score as it stresses the importance of these psychosocial variables,” and to confirm the findings in larger, multicenter, prospective clinical trials, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Kothadia indicated no relevant financial relationships.

A novel prognostic tool based on social determinants effectively predicted increased risk of alcohol use relapse in adults who underwent liver transplants for alcoholic liver disease, based on data from 140 individuals.

Alcohol relapse after liver transplant ranges from 4% to as high as 95% among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and better tools are needed to identify those at increased risk, Jiten P. Kothadia, MD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in a presentation given in October at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Dr. Kothadia and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of the Social Determinant Acuity Tool (S-DAT), which stratified patients in terms of successful post-liver transplant outcomes from excellent (S-DAT scores 0-6) to poor candidates (scores 35-40). The S-DAT categories included cognitive function, mental health, social support, coping skills, financial status, compliance, alcohol abuse, substance abuse, reliability, legal issues, understanding the transplant process, and desire for transplant.

The study population included 140 adults with alcoholic liver disease who underwent a liver transplant between January 2016 and November 2021 at a single center. Before surgery, all patients underwent a thorough psychosocial evaluation using the S-DAT. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, 107 were male, and 67.9% had abstained from alcohol for more than 6 months prior to transplant.

The primary outcome of post-liver transplant alcohol relapse was defined as any alcohol use regardless of the amount or frequency, based on patient interviews or blood or urine tests.

Overall, the rate of relapse was 23.6%; and the rate within a year was 18.6%. In a multivariate analysis, S-DAT score was a significant predictor of relapse (odds ratio [OR] 1.65, P = .000). Other independent predictors of relapse were post-LT alcohol treatment (OR 7.11, P = .02), smoking history (OR 0.15, P = .03), and marital status (OR 60.28, P = .000). The area under the receiver operative curves (AUROC) for the S-DAT score to predict alcohol relapse within 1 year after LT was 0.77.

The sensitivity of the S-DAT for predicting relapse risk was 96.2%, and specificity was 40.4%; positive and negative predictive values were 26.9% and 97.9%, respectively.

The high sensitivity and negative predictive values of the S-DAT make it a useful screening tool for identifying patients at low risk of alcohol relapse after a liver transplant, Dr. Kothadia said in an interview. “Our score will guide risk-based interventions post-LT to reduce post-LT relapse and improve long-term outcomes.”

The findings included only data from a single center, which may limit generalizability, Dr. Kothadia said. The tool is not yet clinically available, he noted.

“We would like to perform external validation of our S-DAT score as it stresses the importance of these psychosocial variables,” and to confirm the findings in larger, multicenter, prospective clinical trials, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Kothadia indicated no relevant financial relationships.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

An intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device provided prompt and effective management of bleeding in cases of obstetric hemorrhage, based on data from 800 individuals.

Morbidity and mortality related to postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) are often preventable if caught early, but the persistent rise in PPH-associated morbidity illustrates the need for new and innovative treatments, wrote Dena Goffman, MD, of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center

The device, known as the Jada System, was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for management of abnormal postpartum uterine bleeding or postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) in August 2020 and showed safety and effectiveness in a registrational study of 106 patients, the researchers said.

In a postmarket registry medical record review known as RUBY (Treating Abnormal Postpartum Uterine Bleeding or Postpartum Hemorrhage with the Jada System), the researchers examined data collected from Oct. 8, 2020, to March 31, 2022, at 16 centers in the United States. The findings were published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The study population included all individuals treated with an intrauterine vacuum-induced hemorrhage control device; of these, 530 were vaginal births and 270 were cesarean births. A total of 94.3% had uterine atony, alone or in conjunction with other causes of bleeding. The median maternal age was 30.3 years; approximately 60% and 53% of patients in the vaginal and cesarean groups were White, and approximately 43% and 49% of patients in the two groups, respectively, were nulliparous.

The median blood loss at the time of device insertion was 1,250 mL in vaginal births and 1,980 mL in cesarean births, and the median time from delivery of the placenta to device insertion was 31 minutes and 108 minutes in the two groups, respectively.

The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as control of bleeding after device insertion, with no escalation of treatment or recurrence of bleeding after the initial bleeding control and device removal.

Treatment success was achieved in 92.5% of vaginal births and 83.7% of cesarean births, and in 95.8% and 88.2%, respectively, among patients with isolated uterine atony. The median insertion time was 3.1 hours for vaginal births and 4.6 hours for cesarean births.

The safety profile was similar to that in the registrational trial and adverse effects were those expected in patients with PPH, the researchers noted.

A total of 14 SAEs were reported in 13 patients with vaginal births, and 22 SAEs were reported in 21 patients with cesarean births. Of these, three were identified as possibly related to the device or procedure (two cases of endometritis in the vaginal birth group and one case of hemorrhagic shock in the cesarean group); no uterine perforations of deaths were reported during the study.

The study was limited by several factors including the use of data mainly from academic centers, which could limit generalizability, and by the use of a mix of estimated and quantitative reporting of blood loss, the researchers noted. Other limitations include the inability to make direct comparisons to other treatments for PPH.

However, the results confirm the safety and efficacy of the device in a real-world setting and support its use as an important new tool in the management of PPH and reducing maternal morbidity and mortality, they concluded.

Two companies were involved in the study; Alydia Health contributed to the concept, design, and analysis, and Organon contributed to data analysis and reviewed the manuscript.

Dr. Goffman disclosed research support from Organon and Alydia Health, as well as serving as a speaker for Haymarket and PRIME PPH education and for Laborie, participation in the Cooper Surgical Obstetrical Safety Council, and serving as an editor for UpToDate. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Organon and Alydia Health.

The use of laser epilation (LE) as a supplement to standard care significantly reduces recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with standard care alone, according to the results of a randomized trial.

The study, recently published in JAMA Surgery, enrolled 302 patients ages 11-21 with pilonidal disease. Half of the participants were assigned to receive LE (laser hair removal) plus standard treatment (improved hygiene plus mechanical or chemical hair removal), and half were assigned to receive standard care alone.

At 1 year, 10.4% of the patients who had received LE plus standard treatment had experienced a recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with 33.6% of patients in the standard treatment group (P < .001). Rates were based on the data available on 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group.

“These results provide further evidence that laser epilation is safe, well-tolerated, and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients,” first author Peter C. Minneci, MD, chair of surgery at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware Valley, Wilmington, Del, said in a press release reporting the results. “There have been few comparative studies that have investigated recurrence rates after LE versus other treatment modalities,” he and his coauthors wrote in the study, noting that the study “was the first, to our knowledge, to compare LE as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone and demonstrate a decrease in recurrence rates.”

Pilonidal disease, a common condition, results when cysts form between the buttocks and is most common in adolescents and young adults. It is thought to recur about 33% of the time, with most cases recurring within 1 year of treatment.

In practice, there are large variations in management strategies for pilonidal disease because evidence for an ideal treatment approach is lacking, Dr. Minneci and coauthors wrote. Although lifestyle modifications and nonepilation hair removal strategies have been linked to a reduced need for surgery, compliance with these strategies is low. Additionally, recurrence contributes to “a high degree of psychosocial stress in patients, who often miss school or sports and may avoid social activities,” Dr. Minneci said in the press release. Therefore, some practitioners have begun using LE – which uses selective thermolysis to remove the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb – as an adjunct to standard treatments in the hopes of avoiding surgery. 

A few studies have shown LE is effective in reducing pilonidal disease recurrence, but these studies had small sample sizes, according to the authors.

Study methods

The randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, and enrolled patients aged 11-21 years with a history of pilonidal disease, who did not have active disease.

Those in the control group (151 patients) had an in-person clinic visit where they received education and training about hair removal in the gluteal cleft, and were provided with supplies for hair removal (chemical epilation or shaving) for 6 months (standard of care). Those in the LE group (151 patients) received standard of care therapy, and also received one LE treatment every 4-6 weeks for a total of five treatments. They were encouraged to perform hair removal using chemical or mechanical depilation between visits.

At the 1-year follow-up, data were available in 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group. At that time, the proportion of those who had a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE group than in the standard care group (mean difference, –23.2%; 95% CI, –33.2% to –13.1%; P < .001).

In addition, over the course of a year, those in the LE-treated group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness scores, indicating that they felt more positively about their illness at 6 months than participants in the standard care group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of patient or caregiver disability days, patient- or caregiver-reported health-related quality of life, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma. In the LE group, no burns were reported, and no inability to tolerate treatment because of pain.

The study had several limitations, including the potential for participation bias, and because of a loss to follow-up, primary and secondary outcomes were missing data points, which was higher in the LE group. Loss to follow-up in the LE arm increased after 6 months, when laser treatments ended, with many of those patients not completing surveys at 9 and 12 months. The hospital’s pilonidal clinic shut down for 3 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the clinic reopened, 15 patients in the LE arm withdrew from the study.

|In the press release, Dr. Minneci said that confirmation of the effectiveness of LE could help justify insurance coverage for pilonidal disease, noting that LE is usually not covered with insurance, and a course of treatment could cost $800-$1,500.

Dr. Minneci and four of the other six coauthors reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. One author reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. The research was funded by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The use of laser epilation (LE) as a supplement to standard care significantly reduces recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with standard care alone, according to the results of a randomized trial.

The study, recently published in JAMA Surgery, enrolled 302 patients ages 11-21 with pilonidal disease. Half of the participants were assigned to receive LE (laser hair removal) plus standard treatment (improved hygiene plus mechanical or chemical hair removal), and half were assigned to receive standard care alone.

At 1 year, 10.4% of the patients who had received LE plus standard treatment had experienced a recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with 33.6% of patients in the standard treatment group (P < .001). Rates were based on the data available on 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group.

“These results provide further evidence that laser epilation is safe, well-tolerated, and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients,” first author Peter C. Minneci, MD, chair of surgery at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware Valley, Wilmington, Del, said in a press release reporting the results. “There have been few comparative studies that have investigated recurrence rates after LE versus other treatment modalities,” he and his coauthors wrote in the study, noting that the study “was the first, to our knowledge, to compare LE as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone and demonstrate a decrease in recurrence rates.”

Pilonidal disease, a common condition, results when cysts form between the buttocks and is most common in adolescents and young adults. It is thought to recur about 33% of the time, with most cases recurring within 1 year of treatment.

In practice, there are large variations in management strategies for pilonidal disease because evidence for an ideal treatment approach is lacking, Dr. Minneci and coauthors wrote. Although lifestyle modifications and nonepilation hair removal strategies have been linked to a reduced need for surgery, compliance with these strategies is low. Additionally, recurrence contributes to “a high degree of psychosocial stress in patients, who often miss school or sports and may avoid social activities,” Dr. Minneci said in the press release. Therefore, some practitioners have begun using LE – which uses selective thermolysis to remove the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb – as an adjunct to standard treatments in the hopes of avoiding surgery. 

A few studies have shown LE is effective in reducing pilonidal disease recurrence, but these studies had small sample sizes, according to the authors.

Study methods

The randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, and enrolled patients aged 11-21 years with a history of pilonidal disease, who did not have active disease.

Those in the control group (151 patients) had an in-person clinic visit where they received education and training about hair removal in the gluteal cleft, and were provided with supplies for hair removal (chemical epilation or shaving) for 6 months (standard of care). Those in the LE group (151 patients) received standard of care therapy, and also received one LE treatment every 4-6 weeks for a total of five treatments. They were encouraged to perform hair removal using chemical or mechanical depilation between visits.

At the 1-year follow-up, data were available in 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group. At that time, the proportion of those who had a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE group than in the standard care group (mean difference, –23.2%; 95% CI, –33.2% to –13.1%; P < .001).

In addition, over the course of a year, those in the LE-treated group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness scores, indicating that they felt more positively about their illness at 6 months than participants in the standard care group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of patient or caregiver disability days, patient- or caregiver-reported health-related quality of life, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma. In the LE group, no burns were reported, and no inability to tolerate treatment because of pain.

The study had several limitations, including the potential for participation bias, and because of a loss to follow-up, primary and secondary outcomes were missing data points, which was higher in the LE group. Loss to follow-up in the LE arm increased after 6 months, when laser treatments ended, with many of those patients not completing surveys at 9 and 12 months. The hospital’s pilonidal clinic shut down for 3 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the clinic reopened, 15 patients in the LE arm withdrew from the study.

|In the press release, Dr. Minneci said that confirmation of the effectiveness of LE could help justify insurance coverage for pilonidal disease, noting that LE is usually not covered with insurance, and a course of treatment could cost $800-$1,500.

Dr. Minneci and four of the other six coauthors reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. One author reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. The research was funded by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The use of laser epilation (LE) as a supplement to standard care significantly reduces recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with standard care alone, according to the results of a randomized trial.

The study, recently published in JAMA Surgery, enrolled 302 patients ages 11-21 with pilonidal disease. Half of the participants were assigned to receive LE (laser hair removal) plus standard treatment (improved hygiene plus mechanical or chemical hair removal), and half were assigned to receive standard care alone.

At 1 year, 10.4% of the patients who had received LE plus standard treatment had experienced a recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with 33.6% of patients in the standard treatment group (P < .001). Rates were based on the data available on 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group.

“These results provide further evidence that laser epilation is safe, well-tolerated, and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients,” first author Peter C. Minneci, MD, chair of surgery at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware Valley, Wilmington, Del, said in a press release reporting the results. “There have been few comparative studies that have investigated recurrence rates after LE versus other treatment modalities,” he and his coauthors wrote in the study, noting that the study “was the first, to our knowledge, to compare LE as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone and demonstrate a decrease in recurrence rates.”

Pilonidal disease, a common condition, results when cysts form between the buttocks and is most common in adolescents and young adults. It is thought to recur about 33% of the time, with most cases recurring within 1 year of treatment.

In practice, there are large variations in management strategies for pilonidal disease because evidence for an ideal treatment approach is lacking, Dr. Minneci and coauthors wrote. Although lifestyle modifications and nonepilation hair removal strategies have been linked to a reduced need for surgery, compliance with these strategies is low. Additionally, recurrence contributes to “a high degree of psychosocial stress in patients, who often miss school or sports and may avoid social activities,” Dr. Minneci said in the press release. Therefore, some practitioners have begun using LE – which uses selective thermolysis to remove the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb – as an adjunct to standard treatments in the hopes of avoiding surgery. 

A few studies have shown LE is effective in reducing pilonidal disease recurrence, but these studies had small sample sizes, according to the authors.

Study methods

The randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, and enrolled patients aged 11-21 years with a history of pilonidal disease, who did not have active disease.

Those in the control group (151 patients) had an in-person clinic visit where they received education and training about hair removal in the gluteal cleft, and were provided with supplies for hair removal (chemical epilation or shaving) for 6 months (standard of care). Those in the LE group (151 patients) received standard of care therapy, and also received one LE treatment every 4-6 weeks for a total of five treatments. They were encouraged to perform hair removal using chemical or mechanical depilation between visits.

At the 1-year follow-up, data were available in 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group. At that time, the proportion of those who had a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE group than in the standard care group (mean difference, –23.2%; 95% CI, –33.2% to –13.1%; P < .001).

In addition, over the course of a year, those in the LE-treated group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness scores, indicating that they felt more positively about their illness at 6 months than participants in the standard care group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of patient or caregiver disability days, patient- or caregiver-reported health-related quality of life, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma. In the LE group, no burns were reported, and no inability to tolerate treatment because of pain.

The study had several limitations, including the potential for participation bias, and because of a loss to follow-up, primary and secondary outcomes were missing data points, which was higher in the LE group. Loss to follow-up in the LE arm increased after 6 months, when laser treatments ended, with many of those patients not completing surveys at 9 and 12 months. The hospital’s pilonidal clinic shut down for 3 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the clinic reopened, 15 patients in the LE arm withdrew from the study.

|In the press release, Dr. Minneci said that confirmation of the effectiveness of LE could help justify insurance coverage for pilonidal disease, noting that LE is usually not covered with insurance, and a course of treatment could cost $800-$1,500.

Dr. Minneci and four of the other six coauthors reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. One author reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. The research was funded by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

In 2022, two colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Bhuchitra Singh, MD, MPH, MS, MBA, and James Segars Jr., MD, reviewed the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of newer minimally invasive therapies in reducing bleeding and improving the quality of life and control of symptoms linked to uterine fibroids. 

Their goal, according to Dr. Segars, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the division of women’s health research at Johns Hopkins, was to help guide clinicians and patients in making decisions about the use of the newer therapies, including radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided removal of lesions. 

But he and Dr. Singh, the director of clinical research at the Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Laboratory of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, were surprised by their findings. “The outcomes were relatively the same,” Dr. Segars said. “All of the modalities lead to significant reduction in bleeding and other fibroid-related symptoms.” 

The data on long-term complications and risk for recurrence are sparse for some of the newer approaches, and not enough high-quality long-term studies have been conducted for the Food and Drug Administration to approve them as fertility-sparing treatments.

But perhaps, the biggest challenge now is to ensure that women can take advantage of these newer therapies, with large gaps in both the diagnosis of fibroids and geographic access to minimally invasive treatments.
 

A widespread condition widely underdiagnosed 

Uterine fibroids occur in most women (the incidence rises with age) and can be found in up to 70% of women by the time they reach menopause. Risk factors include family history, increasing interval since last birth, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing parity and use of oral contraceptives are protective.

But as many as 50% of cases go undiagnosed, and one reason for this is the failure of clinicians to dig deeply enough into women’s menstrual histories to diagnose fibroids. 

“The most common cause of anemia is heavy menstrual bleeding,” said Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She frequently sees patients who have already undergone colonoscopy to work-up the source of their anemia before anyone suspects that fibroids are the culprit. 

“When women tell us about their periods, what they’ve been told is normal [bleeding] – or what they’ve always had and considered normal – is actually kind of on the heavier spectrum,” she said. 

Ideally, treatment for uterine fibroids would fix abnormally prolonged or heavy menstrual bleeding, relieve pain, and ameliorate symptoms associated with an enlarged uterus, such as pelvic pressure, urinary frequency, and constipation. And the fibroids would never recur.

By those measures, hysterectomy fits the bill: Success rates in relieving symptoms are high, and the risk for recurrence is zero. But the procedure carries significant drawbacks: short-term complications of surgery, including infection, bleeding, and injury to the bowels and bladder along with potential long-term risks for cardiovascular disease, cancer, ovarian failure and premature menopause, depression, and decline in cognitive function. Those factors loom even larger for women who still hope to have children. 

For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends myomectomy, or surgical removal of individual fibroids, for women who desire uterine preservation or future pregnancy. And the literature here is solid, according to Dr. Singh, who found that 95% of myomectomy patients achieved control of their bleeding symptoms, whether it was via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or laparotomy. Up to 40% of women may develop new fibroids, or leiomyomas, within 3 years, although only 12.2% required a second surgery up to after 5 years. 

But myomectomy is invasive, requiring general anesthesia, incisions in the uterus, and stitches to close the organ. 

Newer techniques have emerged that can effectively treat symptoms of fibroids without requiring surgery. Uterine artery embolization (UAE), which involves passing a catheter into the femoral artery, or laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion can be used to cut off the blood supply of the fibroid. Other techniques, including focused ultrasound surgery and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), use various forms of energy to heat and ablate fibroids. The latter two can be performed in outpatient settings and often without general anesthesia.

Approved for use in 1994, UAE has the most data available, with reduction in the volume of fibroids and uterine tissue lasting up to 5 years, and rates of reintervention of 19%-38% between 2 and 5 years after the procedure. Dr. Singh’s review found that 79%-98.5% of recipients of the procedure reported declines in bleeding that persisted for several years, which is comparable to myomectomy. Quality of life and pain scores also showed good improvement, with follow-up in the different studies ranging from 12 months to over 5 years, the analysis showed.

UAE does have its drawbacks. In rare cases, embolization can deprive the entire uterus and ovaries of blood, which can cause ovarian dysfunction and potentially result in premature menopause, although this outcome is most common in women who are older than 45 years. The procedure can often also be painful enough that overnight hospitalization is required.

Focused ultrasound surgeries, which include magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), were approved by the FDA in 2004. Focused ultrasound waves pass through the abdominal wall and produce significant heating, causing a burn that destroys the targeted tissue without damaging surrounding tissue. As with UAE, improvements in fibroid-associated bleeding and measures of quality of life were similar to those after myomectomy up to 3 years later.

But Dr. Singh noted that both focused ultrasound and RFA can damage the skin or internal organs. “[As] always with the thermal interventions, there is the probability of skin as well as internal organs that might get the thermal energy if it’s not focused correctly on to the fibroid itself,” he said. In addition, MRgFUS is not an option for women who are not good candidates to undergo an MRI, such as those with claustrophobia or pacemakers.

Also, with focus ultrasound and RFA, “we do worry about that fibroid getting blood flow back,” which can lead to recurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso noted. 

Although data on RFA are limited to 12 months of follow-up, most women reported meaningful reductions in bleeding symptoms. Longer follow-up has been reported for bleeding symptoms after MRgFUS, with similar results up to 3 years later. 

For Leslie Hansen-Lindner, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., choosing the right procedure starts with a patient-centered conversation weighing the pros and cons of the options and the woman’s goals. 

“Is their goal to reduce the size and impact of their fibroid, bleed less, and have a better quality of life on their period?” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “Or is their goal to have the entire fibroid removed?” 

If the former, an RFA is appealing to many women. If the latter, laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy myomectomy might be a better choice. Although fewer than 10% of patients require surgical reintervention at 3 years of follow-up for RFA, myomectomy has more consistent long-term evidence showing that fewer women require re-intervention and preserve their fertility, she added. 

Age also plays a role in the decision: The closer a woman is to menopause, the less likely she is to experience a recurrence, so a less-invasive procedure is preferable. But for younger women hoping to become pregnant, the lower risk for recurrence and good prognosis for future fertility might sway the choice toward myomectomy.

The first laparoscopic RFA procedures were approved for uterine fibroids in 2012. Dr. Hansen-Lindner is a proponent of transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA), a newer RFA procedure that the FDA approved in 2018. Performed through the cervix, TFA requires no incisions and can generally be done without general anesthesia. Eligible candidates would be any woman with symptomatic fibroids, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, or bulk symptoms. The contraindications are few.

“It’s going to come down to size and location of fibroids, and whether or not they would be accessible by the TFA,” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “I have to make sure that there isn’t a fibroid blocking their cervix and that the fibroids are accessible with this device.” 

TFA also is not suitable for removing most submucosal lesions, which typically must be removed by hysteroscopic myomectomy. Dr. Hansen-Lindner said that she often uses TFA in conjunction with hysteroscopic myomectomy for this scenario. Although data on pregnancy after RFA (including TFA), MRgFUS, and HIFU are lacking, Gynesonics, the manufacturer of the Sonata System (the device that delivers radiofrequency energy to shrink the fibroid) has documented 79 pregnancies among the 2,200 women who have undergone TFA in the United States since 2018.
 

Disparities hampering care

Uterine fibroids are a particular problem for Black women, whose symptoms are more likely to be ignored by clinicians, according to Jodie Katon, PhD, a core investigator at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy. Dr. Katon cited studies in which Black women interviewed about their experiences reported a consistent theme: Clinicians dismissed their symptoms, told them these were nothing to worry about, and advised them to lose weight. Those interactions not only delayed diagnosis among Black women but also led many of them to mistrust clinicians and avoid the health care system altogether.

The failure of clinicians to take their complaints seriously is just one of the disparities affecting Black women. In reviewing the literature, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, who also serves as the associate dean for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Mayo Clinic, found that African American women experience two to three times the risk for fibroids, compared with White women, as well as earlier onset and more severe disease, as measured by number and size of the lesions. 

According to Dr. Katon, the etiology of fibroids is still poorly understood. “What we do know is that Black women are disproportionately exposed to a variety of factors that we have shown through observational studies are associated with increased risk of development of uterine fibroids.” 

The list includes factors like stress; interpersonal racism; early age at menarche; various indicators of poor diets, such as vitamin D deficiency; the use of certain beauty products, specifically hair straighteners; as well as exposure to air pollution and other environmental toxins.

Laughlin-Tommaso also pointed to historical disparities in management, citing a doubled risk for hysterectomy for Black women in a study published in 2007 despite survey data suggesting that Black women report being more interested in uterine-preserving therapies rather than a hysterectomy.
 

Breaking down barriers of access to new treatments

Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso looked at more recent trends in the management of fibroids using data from the multicenter COMPARE-UF study, which enrolled women between 2015 and 2020 undergoing fibroid treatment into a longitudinal registry to track their outcomes. She found that Black women underwent hysterectomies at a lower rate than did White women and were instead more likely to undergo myomectomy or UAE. 

Some of the change may reflect lack of approved minimally invasive procedures before 2000. “But now that we have expanded options, I think most women are opting not to have a hysterectomy,” Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso said.

Dr. Katon has research funding from the VA to look more closely at racial disparities in the treatment of fibroids. In a study published in April 2023, she reported some surprising trends. 

During the period from 2010 to 2018, she found that Black veterans diagnosed with fibroids were less likely than White veterans were to receive treatment, regardless of their age or the severity of their symptoms. This finding held even among women with anemia, which should have been a clear indication for treatment.

But, as in the COMPARE-UF study, the subset of Black veterans who received an interventional treatment were less likely than their White peers were to undergo hysterectomy in favor of a fertility-sparing treatment as their initial procedure. Dr. Katon called it a “welcome but unexpected finding.” 

But another significant barrier remains: The two newest types of procedures, RFA and guided focused ultrasound, are not commonly performed outside of tertiary care facilities. However, studies have found that all these procedures are cost effective (studies for myomectomy, UAE, MRgFUS, and TFA). The implementation of a category 1 billing code for laparoscopic RFA in 2017 has led more insurance companies to cover the service, and a category 1 code will be available for TFA effective January 2024. 

Although RFA does require investment in specialized equipment, which limits facilities from offering the procedure, any gynecologist who routinely performs hysteroscopy can easily learn to do TFA. And the VA, which is committed to eliminating disparities in women’s health, established a 2-year advanced fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in 2022 to help expand their capacity to offer these procedures. 

The VA has been rapidly expanding their gynecology services, and Katon said that she is confident that ultrasound-guided procedures and RFA will become more available within the system. “I would say we’re keeping pace. And in some ways, you know, as a national system we may be positioned to actually outpace the rest of the U.S.”

Dr. Segars reported prior research funding for clinical trials from BioSpecifics Technologies, Bayer, Allergan, AbbVie, and ObsEva and currently receives funding from Myovant Sciences. Dr. Hansen-Lindner reported personal fees from Gynesonics. Dr. Singh, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, and Dr. Katon reported no financial conflicts of interest. 

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

In 2022, two colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Bhuchitra Singh, MD, MPH, MS, MBA, and James Segars Jr., MD, reviewed the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of newer minimally invasive therapies in reducing bleeding and improving the quality of life and control of symptoms linked to uterine fibroids. 

Their goal, according to Dr. Segars, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the division of women’s health research at Johns Hopkins, was to help guide clinicians and patients in making decisions about the use of the newer therapies, including radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided removal of lesions. 

But he and Dr. Singh, the director of clinical research at the Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Laboratory of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, were surprised by their findings. “The outcomes were relatively the same,” Dr. Segars said. “All of the modalities lead to significant reduction in bleeding and other fibroid-related symptoms.” 

The data on long-term complications and risk for recurrence are sparse for some of the newer approaches, and not enough high-quality long-term studies have been conducted for the Food and Drug Administration to approve them as fertility-sparing treatments.

But perhaps, the biggest challenge now is to ensure that women can take advantage of these newer therapies, with large gaps in both the diagnosis of fibroids and geographic access to minimally invasive treatments.
 

A widespread condition widely underdiagnosed 

Uterine fibroids occur in most women (the incidence rises with age) and can be found in up to 70% of women by the time they reach menopause. Risk factors include family history, increasing interval since last birth, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing parity and use of oral contraceptives are protective.

But as many as 50% of cases go undiagnosed, and one reason for this is the failure of clinicians to dig deeply enough into women’s menstrual histories to diagnose fibroids. 

“The most common cause of anemia is heavy menstrual bleeding,” said Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She frequently sees patients who have already undergone colonoscopy to work-up the source of their anemia before anyone suspects that fibroids are the culprit. 

“When women tell us about their periods, what they’ve been told is normal [bleeding] – or what they’ve always had and considered normal – is actually kind of on the heavier spectrum,” she said. 

Ideally, treatment for uterine fibroids would fix abnormally prolonged or heavy menstrual bleeding, relieve pain, and ameliorate symptoms associated with an enlarged uterus, such as pelvic pressure, urinary frequency, and constipation. And the fibroids would never recur.

By those measures, hysterectomy fits the bill: Success rates in relieving symptoms are high, and the risk for recurrence is zero. But the procedure carries significant drawbacks: short-term complications of surgery, including infection, bleeding, and injury to the bowels and bladder along with potential long-term risks for cardiovascular disease, cancer, ovarian failure and premature menopause, depression, and decline in cognitive function. Those factors loom even larger for women who still hope to have children. 

For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends myomectomy, or surgical removal of individual fibroids, for women who desire uterine preservation or future pregnancy. And the literature here is solid, according to Dr. Singh, who found that 95% of myomectomy patients achieved control of their bleeding symptoms, whether it was via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or laparotomy. Up to 40% of women may develop new fibroids, or leiomyomas, within 3 years, although only 12.2% required a second surgery up to after 5 years. 

But myomectomy is invasive, requiring general anesthesia, incisions in the uterus, and stitches to close the organ. 

Newer techniques have emerged that can effectively treat symptoms of fibroids without requiring surgery. Uterine artery embolization (UAE), which involves passing a catheter into the femoral artery, or laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion can be used to cut off the blood supply of the fibroid. Other techniques, including focused ultrasound surgery and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), use various forms of energy to heat and ablate fibroids. The latter two can be performed in outpatient settings and often without general anesthesia.

Approved for use in 1994, UAE has the most data available, with reduction in the volume of fibroids and uterine tissue lasting up to 5 years, and rates of reintervention of 19%-38% between 2 and 5 years after the procedure. Dr. Singh’s review found that 79%-98.5% of recipients of the procedure reported declines in bleeding that persisted for several years, which is comparable to myomectomy. Quality of life and pain scores also showed good improvement, with follow-up in the different studies ranging from 12 months to over 5 years, the analysis showed.

UAE does have its drawbacks. In rare cases, embolization can deprive the entire uterus and ovaries of blood, which can cause ovarian dysfunction and potentially result in premature menopause, although this outcome is most common in women who are older than 45 years. The procedure can often also be painful enough that overnight hospitalization is required.

Focused ultrasound surgeries, which include magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), were approved by the FDA in 2004. Focused ultrasound waves pass through the abdominal wall and produce significant heating, causing a burn that destroys the targeted tissue without damaging surrounding tissue. As with UAE, improvements in fibroid-associated bleeding and measures of quality of life were similar to those after myomectomy up to 3 years later.

But Dr. Singh noted that both focused ultrasound and RFA can damage the skin or internal organs. “[As] always with the thermal interventions, there is the probability of skin as well as internal organs that might get the thermal energy if it’s not focused correctly on to the fibroid itself,” he said. In addition, MRgFUS is not an option for women who are not good candidates to undergo an MRI, such as those with claustrophobia or pacemakers.

Also, with focus ultrasound and RFA, “we do worry about that fibroid getting blood flow back,” which can lead to recurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso noted. 

Although data on RFA are limited to 12 months of follow-up, most women reported meaningful reductions in bleeding symptoms. Longer follow-up has been reported for bleeding symptoms after MRgFUS, with similar results up to 3 years later. 

For Leslie Hansen-Lindner, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., choosing the right procedure starts with a patient-centered conversation weighing the pros and cons of the options and the woman’s goals. 

“Is their goal to reduce the size and impact of their fibroid, bleed less, and have a better quality of life on their period?” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “Or is their goal to have the entire fibroid removed?” 

If the former, an RFA is appealing to many women. If the latter, laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy myomectomy might be a better choice. Although fewer than 10% of patients require surgical reintervention at 3 years of follow-up for RFA, myomectomy has more consistent long-term evidence showing that fewer women require re-intervention and preserve their fertility, she added. 

Age also plays a role in the decision: The closer a woman is to menopause, the less likely she is to experience a recurrence, so a less-invasive procedure is preferable. But for younger women hoping to become pregnant, the lower risk for recurrence and good prognosis for future fertility might sway the choice toward myomectomy.

The first laparoscopic RFA procedures were approved for uterine fibroids in 2012. Dr. Hansen-Lindner is a proponent of transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA), a newer RFA procedure that the FDA approved in 2018. Performed through the cervix, TFA requires no incisions and can generally be done without general anesthesia. Eligible candidates would be any woman with symptomatic fibroids, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, or bulk symptoms. The contraindications are few.

“It’s going to come down to size and location of fibroids, and whether or not they would be accessible by the TFA,” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “I have to make sure that there isn’t a fibroid blocking their cervix and that the fibroids are accessible with this device.” 

TFA also is not suitable for removing most submucosal lesions, which typically must be removed by hysteroscopic myomectomy. Dr. Hansen-Lindner said that she often uses TFA in conjunction with hysteroscopic myomectomy for this scenario. Although data on pregnancy after RFA (including TFA), MRgFUS, and HIFU are lacking, Gynesonics, the manufacturer of the Sonata System (the device that delivers radiofrequency energy to shrink the fibroid) has documented 79 pregnancies among the 2,200 women who have undergone TFA in the United States since 2018.
 

Disparities hampering care

Uterine fibroids are a particular problem for Black women, whose symptoms are more likely to be ignored by clinicians, according to Jodie Katon, PhD, a core investigator at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy. Dr. Katon cited studies in which Black women interviewed about their experiences reported a consistent theme: Clinicians dismissed their symptoms, told them these were nothing to worry about, and advised them to lose weight. Those interactions not only delayed diagnosis among Black women but also led many of them to mistrust clinicians and avoid the health care system altogether.

The failure of clinicians to take their complaints seriously is just one of the disparities affecting Black women. In reviewing the literature, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, who also serves as the associate dean for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Mayo Clinic, found that African American women experience two to three times the risk for fibroids, compared with White women, as well as earlier onset and more severe disease, as measured by number and size of the lesions. 

According to Dr. Katon, the etiology of fibroids is still poorly understood. “What we do know is that Black women are disproportionately exposed to a variety of factors that we have shown through observational studies are associated with increased risk of development of uterine fibroids.” 

The list includes factors like stress; interpersonal racism; early age at menarche; various indicators of poor diets, such as vitamin D deficiency; the use of certain beauty products, specifically hair straighteners; as well as exposure to air pollution and other environmental toxins.

Laughlin-Tommaso also pointed to historical disparities in management, citing a doubled risk for hysterectomy for Black women in a study published in 2007 despite survey data suggesting that Black women report being more interested in uterine-preserving therapies rather than a hysterectomy.
 

Breaking down barriers of access to new treatments

Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso looked at more recent trends in the management of fibroids using data from the multicenter COMPARE-UF study, which enrolled women between 2015 and 2020 undergoing fibroid treatment into a longitudinal registry to track their outcomes. She found that Black women underwent hysterectomies at a lower rate than did White women and were instead more likely to undergo myomectomy or UAE. 

Some of the change may reflect lack of approved minimally invasive procedures before 2000. “But now that we have expanded options, I think most women are opting not to have a hysterectomy,” Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso said.

Dr. Katon has research funding from the VA to look more closely at racial disparities in the treatment of fibroids. In a study published in April 2023, she reported some surprising trends. 

During the period from 2010 to 2018, she found that Black veterans diagnosed with fibroids were less likely than White veterans were to receive treatment, regardless of their age or the severity of their symptoms. This finding held even among women with anemia, which should have been a clear indication for treatment.

But, as in the COMPARE-UF study, the subset of Black veterans who received an interventional treatment were less likely than their White peers were to undergo hysterectomy in favor of a fertility-sparing treatment as their initial procedure. Dr. Katon called it a “welcome but unexpected finding.” 

But another significant barrier remains: The two newest types of procedures, RFA and guided focused ultrasound, are not commonly performed outside of tertiary care facilities. However, studies have found that all these procedures are cost effective (studies for myomectomy, UAE, MRgFUS, and TFA). The implementation of a category 1 billing code for laparoscopic RFA in 2017 has led more insurance companies to cover the service, and a category 1 code will be available for TFA effective January 2024. 

Although RFA does require investment in specialized equipment, which limits facilities from offering the procedure, any gynecologist who routinely performs hysteroscopy can easily learn to do TFA. And the VA, which is committed to eliminating disparities in women’s health, established a 2-year advanced fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in 2022 to help expand their capacity to offer these procedures. 

The VA has been rapidly expanding their gynecology services, and Katon said that she is confident that ultrasound-guided procedures and RFA will become more available within the system. “I would say we’re keeping pace. And in some ways, you know, as a national system we may be positioned to actually outpace the rest of the U.S.”

Dr. Segars reported prior research funding for clinical trials from BioSpecifics Technologies, Bayer, Allergan, AbbVie, and ObsEva and currently receives funding from Myovant Sciences. Dr. Hansen-Lindner reported personal fees from Gynesonics. Dr. Singh, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, and Dr. Katon reported no financial conflicts of interest. 

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

In 2022, two colleagues from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Bhuchitra Singh, MD, MPH, MS, MBA, and James Segars Jr., MD, reviewed the available literature to evaluate the effectiveness of newer minimally invasive therapies in reducing bleeding and improving the quality of life and control of symptoms linked to uterine fibroids. 

Their goal, according to Dr. Segars, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the division of women’s health research at Johns Hopkins, was to help guide clinicians and patients in making decisions about the use of the newer therapies, including radiofrequency ablation and ultrasound-guided removal of lesions. 

But he and Dr. Singh, the director of clinical research at the Howard W. and Georgeanna Seegar Jones Laboratory of Reproductive Sciences and Women’s Health Research, were surprised by their findings. “The outcomes were relatively the same,” Dr. Segars said. “All of the modalities lead to significant reduction in bleeding and other fibroid-related symptoms.” 

The data on long-term complications and risk for recurrence are sparse for some of the newer approaches, and not enough high-quality long-term studies have been conducted for the Food and Drug Administration to approve them as fertility-sparing treatments.

But perhaps, the biggest challenge now is to ensure that women can take advantage of these newer therapies, with large gaps in both the diagnosis of fibroids and geographic access to minimally invasive treatments.
 

A widespread condition widely underdiagnosed 

Uterine fibroids occur in most women (the incidence rises with age) and can be found in up to 70% of women by the time they reach menopause. Risk factors include family history, increasing interval since last birth, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing parity and use of oral contraceptives are protective.

But as many as 50% of cases go undiagnosed, and one reason for this is the failure of clinicians to dig deeply enough into women’s menstrual histories to diagnose fibroids. 

“The most common cause of anemia is heavy menstrual bleeding,” said Shannon Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. She frequently sees patients who have already undergone colonoscopy to work-up the source of their anemia before anyone suspects that fibroids are the culprit. 

“When women tell us about their periods, what they’ve been told is normal [bleeding] – or what they’ve always had and considered normal – is actually kind of on the heavier spectrum,” she said. 

Ideally, treatment for uterine fibroids would fix abnormally prolonged or heavy menstrual bleeding, relieve pain, and ameliorate symptoms associated with an enlarged uterus, such as pelvic pressure, urinary frequency, and constipation. And the fibroids would never recur.

By those measures, hysterectomy fits the bill: Success rates in relieving symptoms are high, and the risk for recurrence is zero. But the procedure carries significant drawbacks: short-term complications of surgery, including infection, bleeding, and injury to the bowels and bladder along with potential long-term risks for cardiovascular disease, cancer, ovarian failure and premature menopause, depression, and decline in cognitive function. Those factors loom even larger for women who still hope to have children. 

For that reason, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends myomectomy, or surgical removal of individual fibroids, for women who desire uterine preservation or future pregnancy. And the literature here is solid, according to Dr. Singh, who found that 95% of myomectomy patients achieved control of their bleeding symptoms, whether it was via laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, or laparotomy. Up to 40% of women may develop new fibroids, or leiomyomas, within 3 years, although only 12.2% required a second surgery up to after 5 years. 

But myomectomy is invasive, requiring general anesthesia, incisions in the uterus, and stitches to close the organ. 

Newer techniques have emerged that can effectively treat symptoms of fibroids without requiring surgery. Uterine artery embolization (UAE), which involves passing a catheter into the femoral artery, or laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion can be used to cut off the blood supply of the fibroid. Other techniques, including focused ultrasound surgery and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), use various forms of energy to heat and ablate fibroids. The latter two can be performed in outpatient settings and often without general anesthesia.

Approved for use in 1994, UAE has the most data available, with reduction in the volume of fibroids and uterine tissue lasting up to 5 years, and rates of reintervention of 19%-38% between 2 and 5 years after the procedure. Dr. Singh’s review found that 79%-98.5% of recipients of the procedure reported declines in bleeding that persisted for several years, which is comparable to myomectomy. Quality of life and pain scores also showed good improvement, with follow-up in the different studies ranging from 12 months to over 5 years, the analysis showed.

UAE does have its drawbacks. In rare cases, embolization can deprive the entire uterus and ovaries of blood, which can cause ovarian dysfunction and potentially result in premature menopause, although this outcome is most common in women who are older than 45 years. The procedure can often also be painful enough that overnight hospitalization is required.

Focused ultrasound surgeries, which include magnetic resonance–guided focused ultrasound surgery (MRgFUS) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), were approved by the FDA in 2004. Focused ultrasound waves pass through the abdominal wall and produce significant heating, causing a burn that destroys the targeted tissue without damaging surrounding tissue. As with UAE, improvements in fibroid-associated bleeding and measures of quality of life were similar to those after myomectomy up to 3 years later.

But Dr. Singh noted that both focused ultrasound and RFA can damage the skin or internal organs. “[As] always with the thermal interventions, there is the probability of skin as well as internal organs that might get the thermal energy if it’s not focused correctly on to the fibroid itself,” he said. In addition, MRgFUS is not an option for women who are not good candidates to undergo an MRI, such as those with claustrophobia or pacemakers.

Also, with focus ultrasound and RFA, “we do worry about that fibroid getting blood flow back,” which can lead to recurrence of heavy menstrual bleeding, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso noted. 

Although data on RFA are limited to 12 months of follow-up, most women reported meaningful reductions in bleeding symptoms. Longer follow-up has been reported for bleeding symptoms after MRgFUS, with similar results up to 3 years later. 

For Leslie Hansen-Lindner, MD, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Atrium Health in Charlotte, N.C., choosing the right procedure starts with a patient-centered conversation weighing the pros and cons of the options and the woman’s goals. 

“Is their goal to reduce the size and impact of their fibroid, bleed less, and have a better quality of life on their period?” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “Or is their goal to have the entire fibroid removed?” 

If the former, an RFA is appealing to many women. If the latter, laparoscopic or mini-laparotomy myomectomy might be a better choice. Although fewer than 10% of patients require surgical reintervention at 3 years of follow-up for RFA, myomectomy has more consistent long-term evidence showing that fewer women require re-intervention and preserve their fertility, she added. 

Age also plays a role in the decision: The closer a woman is to menopause, the less likely she is to experience a recurrence, so a less-invasive procedure is preferable. But for younger women hoping to become pregnant, the lower risk for recurrence and good prognosis for future fertility might sway the choice toward myomectomy.

The first laparoscopic RFA procedures were approved for uterine fibroids in 2012. Dr. Hansen-Lindner is a proponent of transcervical fibroid ablation (TFA), a newer RFA procedure that the FDA approved in 2018. Performed through the cervix, TFA requires no incisions and can generally be done without general anesthesia. Eligible candidates would be any woman with symptomatic fibroids, such as heavy menstrual bleeding, pain, or bulk symptoms. The contraindications are few.

“It’s going to come down to size and location of fibroids, and whether or not they would be accessible by the TFA,” Dr. Hansen-Lindner said. “I have to make sure that there isn’t a fibroid blocking their cervix and that the fibroids are accessible with this device.” 

TFA also is not suitable for removing most submucosal lesions, which typically must be removed by hysteroscopic myomectomy. Dr. Hansen-Lindner said that she often uses TFA in conjunction with hysteroscopic myomectomy for this scenario. Although data on pregnancy after RFA (including TFA), MRgFUS, and HIFU are lacking, Gynesonics, the manufacturer of the Sonata System (the device that delivers radiofrequency energy to shrink the fibroid) has documented 79 pregnancies among the 2,200 women who have undergone TFA in the United States since 2018.
 

Disparities hampering care

Uterine fibroids are a particular problem for Black women, whose symptoms are more likely to be ignored by clinicians, according to Jodie Katon, PhD, a core investigator at the Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy. Dr. Katon cited studies in which Black women interviewed about their experiences reported a consistent theme: Clinicians dismissed their symptoms, told them these were nothing to worry about, and advised them to lose weight. Those interactions not only delayed diagnosis among Black women but also led many of them to mistrust clinicians and avoid the health care system altogether.

The failure of clinicians to take their complaints seriously is just one of the disparities affecting Black women. In reviewing the literature, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, who also serves as the associate dean for Education Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Mayo Clinic, found that African American women experience two to three times the risk for fibroids, compared with White women, as well as earlier onset and more severe disease, as measured by number and size of the lesions. 

According to Dr. Katon, the etiology of fibroids is still poorly understood. “What we do know is that Black women are disproportionately exposed to a variety of factors that we have shown through observational studies are associated with increased risk of development of uterine fibroids.” 

The list includes factors like stress; interpersonal racism; early age at menarche; various indicators of poor diets, such as vitamin D deficiency; the use of certain beauty products, specifically hair straighteners; as well as exposure to air pollution and other environmental toxins.

Laughlin-Tommaso also pointed to historical disparities in management, citing a doubled risk for hysterectomy for Black women in a study published in 2007 despite survey data suggesting that Black women report being more interested in uterine-preserving therapies rather than a hysterectomy.
 

Breaking down barriers of access to new treatments

Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso looked at more recent trends in the management of fibroids using data from the multicenter COMPARE-UF study, which enrolled women between 2015 and 2020 undergoing fibroid treatment into a longitudinal registry to track their outcomes. She found that Black women underwent hysterectomies at a lower rate than did White women and were instead more likely to undergo myomectomy or UAE. 

Some of the change may reflect lack of approved minimally invasive procedures before 2000. “But now that we have expanded options, I think most women are opting not to have a hysterectomy,” Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso said.

Dr. Katon has research funding from the VA to look more closely at racial disparities in the treatment of fibroids. In a study published in April 2023, she reported some surprising trends. 

During the period from 2010 to 2018, she found that Black veterans diagnosed with fibroids were less likely than White veterans were to receive treatment, regardless of their age or the severity of their symptoms. This finding held even among women with anemia, which should have been a clear indication for treatment.

But, as in the COMPARE-UF study, the subset of Black veterans who received an interventional treatment were less likely than their White peers were to undergo hysterectomy in favor of a fertility-sparing treatment as their initial procedure. Dr. Katon called it a “welcome but unexpected finding.” 

But another significant barrier remains: The two newest types of procedures, RFA and guided focused ultrasound, are not commonly performed outside of tertiary care facilities. However, studies have found that all these procedures are cost effective (studies for myomectomy, UAE, MRgFUS, and TFA). The implementation of a category 1 billing code for laparoscopic RFA in 2017 has led more insurance companies to cover the service, and a category 1 code will be available for TFA effective January 2024. 

Although RFA does require investment in specialized equipment, which limits facilities from offering the procedure, any gynecologist who routinely performs hysteroscopy can easily learn to do TFA. And the VA, which is committed to eliminating disparities in women’s health, established a 2-year advanced fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in 2022 to help expand their capacity to offer these procedures. 

The VA has been rapidly expanding their gynecology services, and Katon said that she is confident that ultrasound-guided procedures and RFA will become more available within the system. “I would say we’re keeping pace. And in some ways, you know, as a national system we may be positioned to actually outpace the rest of the U.S.”

Dr. Segars reported prior research funding for clinical trials from BioSpecifics Technologies, Bayer, Allergan, AbbVie, and ObsEva and currently receives funding from Myovant Sciences. Dr. Hansen-Lindner reported personal fees from Gynesonics. Dr. Singh, Dr. Laughlin-Tommaso, and Dr. Katon reported no financial conflicts of interest. 

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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