Clinical Endocrinology News

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended thyroid monitoring for newborns and children through 3 years of age within 3 weeks of receiving injections of iodine-containing contrast media as part of imaging procedures.

A recent FDA review showed that “underactive thyroid or a temporary decrease in thyroid hormone levels were uncommon,” according to an updated Drug Safety Communication issued on March 30, 2022.

However, early monitoring will help identify and treat any thyroid abnormalities as a result of the injections to help prevent potential complications in the future, according to the FDA, as babies and children do not generally show visible signs of thyroid problems and may not do so after an iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection.

ICM have been approved and used for decades to enhance images on x-rays or computed tomography (CT) scans, according to the communication.

The new FDA warning and recommendation for monitoring applies to the prescribing information for the entire class of ICM products. The new communication is an update to the 2015 Drug Safety Communication that advised medical professionals of the potential for underactive thyroid in response to ICM injections in newborns and young children. The update reflects new studies since that time.

The recent research showed that most reported cases of adverse effects were transient subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment, according to the FDA. “The reported rate ranged from 1 percent to 15 percent and tended to be higher in neonates, particularly preterm neonates,” they said. Others at increased risk are those with underlying medical conditions, especially those with cardiac conditions who often require higher doses of contrast during invasive procedures.

In the recent studies, the time from ICM exposure to a diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction ranged from 8.5 to 138 days, but most occurred within 3 weeks, according to the update.

Patients and clinicians can report any adverse events from ICM or other medications to the FDA via FDA MedWatch program.

For more information, read the complete Drug Safety Communication.

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended thyroid monitoring for newborns and children through 3 years of age within 3 weeks of receiving injections of iodine-containing contrast media as part of imaging procedures.

A recent FDA review showed that “underactive thyroid or a temporary decrease in thyroid hormone levels were uncommon,” according to an updated Drug Safety Communication issued on March 30, 2022.

However, early monitoring will help identify and treat any thyroid abnormalities as a result of the injections to help prevent potential complications in the future, according to the FDA, as babies and children do not generally show visible signs of thyroid problems and may not do so after an iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection.

ICM have been approved and used for decades to enhance images on x-rays or computed tomography (CT) scans, according to the communication.

The new FDA warning and recommendation for monitoring applies to the prescribing information for the entire class of ICM products. The new communication is an update to the 2015 Drug Safety Communication that advised medical professionals of the potential for underactive thyroid in response to ICM injections in newborns and young children. The update reflects new studies since that time.

The recent research showed that most reported cases of adverse effects were transient subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment, according to the FDA. “The reported rate ranged from 1 percent to 15 percent and tended to be higher in neonates, particularly preterm neonates,” they said. Others at increased risk are those with underlying medical conditions, especially those with cardiac conditions who often require higher doses of contrast during invasive procedures.

In the recent studies, the time from ICM exposure to a diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction ranged from 8.5 to 138 days, but most occurred within 3 weeks, according to the update.

Patients and clinicians can report any adverse events from ICM or other medications to the FDA via FDA MedWatch program.

For more information, read the complete Drug Safety Communication.

The Food and Drug Administration has recommended thyroid monitoring for newborns and children through 3 years of age within 3 weeks of receiving injections of iodine-containing contrast media as part of imaging procedures.

A recent FDA review showed that “underactive thyroid or a temporary decrease in thyroid hormone levels were uncommon,” according to an updated Drug Safety Communication issued on March 30, 2022.

However, early monitoring will help identify and treat any thyroid abnormalities as a result of the injections to help prevent potential complications in the future, according to the FDA, as babies and children do not generally show visible signs of thyroid problems and may not do so after an iodinated contrast media (ICM) injection.

ICM have been approved and used for decades to enhance images on x-rays or computed tomography (CT) scans, according to the communication.

The new FDA warning and recommendation for monitoring applies to the prescribing information for the entire class of ICM products. The new communication is an update to the 2015 Drug Safety Communication that advised medical professionals of the potential for underactive thyroid in response to ICM injections in newborns and young children. The update reflects new studies since that time.

The recent research showed that most reported cases of adverse effects were transient subclinical hypothyroidism and did not require treatment, according to the FDA. “The reported rate ranged from 1 percent to 15 percent and tended to be higher in neonates, particularly preterm neonates,” they said. Others at increased risk are those with underlying medical conditions, especially those with cardiac conditions who often require higher doses of contrast during invasive procedures.

In the recent studies, the time from ICM exposure to a diagnosis of thyroid dysfunction ranged from 8.5 to 138 days, but most occurred within 3 weeks, according to the update.

Patients and clinicians can report any adverse events from ICM or other medications to the FDA via FDA MedWatch program.

For more information, read the complete Drug Safety Communication.

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

The risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD) climbs steadily in tandem with coronary artery calcium (CAC) burden, independent of more conventional risk factors, in primary-prevention patients considered low- to intermediate-risk, researchers say.

The findings, based on a large cohort study, strengthen the case for initial CAC imaging as a gatekeeper to further testing in such patients who have mostly subclinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), they conclude.

The CAC scan is “evolving into a primary-prevention screening test, not only for initiating statin therapy, but now as a screening modality for risk stratifying someone for sudden cardiac arrest,” Alexander C. Razavi, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

“Our data reinforce this and give some quantitative measures of when we should start to consider that.”

A CAC score of 100 to 399 in this “primarily asymptomatic,” predominantly White and male cohort elevated the risk for SCD over an average of 10.6 years by a factor of 2.8, compared with a score of 0. The risk went up four times with CAC scores of 400-999, and almost five times with scores above 1,000.

The risk association was independent of age and sex but also diabetes, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and family history of heart disease.

That and other findings, Dr. Razavi said, suggest CAC scores in low- to intermediate-risk patients like those studied may sharpen SCD risk-stratification beyond what is possible using traditional risk factors.

Dr. Razavi is lead author on the study’s March 21 publication in JACC Cardiovascular Imaging, and is slated to present the results April 2 during the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2022 Scientific Session, to be held virtually and in-person in Washington, D.C.

The study’s 66,636 primary-prevention patients, part of the Coronary Artery Calcium Consortium observational cohort, were without known coronary disease at enrollment, from 1991-2010, at four major American centers. They had been referred to CAC imaging because of the presence of at least one ASCVD risk factor, such as dyslipidemia, family history of premature heart disease, hypertension, or diabetes, the researchers note.

They observed 211 SCD events, for a rate of about 0.3%, over a median of 10.6 years. The adjusted stepwise higher risk (SHR) for an SCD event went up continuously with CAC scores (P for trend < .001). The SHR values, compared with a CAC score of 0, were:

• 1.3 (95% CI, 0.7-2.4) for a CAC score score of 1 to 99
• 2.8 (95% CI, 1.6-5.0) for a CAC score of 100 to 399
• 4.0 (95% CI, 2.2-7.3) for a CAC score of 400 to 999
• 4.9 (95% CI, 2.6-9.9) for a CAC score above 1,000

The magnitude of the CAC score’s association with SCD risk in the study was “surprising,” Dr. Razavi said. The CAC score, starting at about 100, seems “more strongly associated with a sudden cardiac arrest” than more familiar SCD risk predictors, such as prolonged heart-rate-corrected QT interval or QRS duration.

Dr. Razavi reported no conflicts. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

Thousands of doctors get a shout out every year when they make the “Top Doctor” lists in various magazines. Some may be your colleagues or competitors. Should you be concerned if you’re not on the list?

Best Doctor lists are clearly popular with readers and make money for the magazines.  They can also bring in patient revenue for doctors and their employers who promote them in news releases and on their websites.

For doctors on some of the top lists, the recognition can bring not only patients, but national or international visibility.

But many doctors don’t make it onto these lists. Will they lose business or prestige?

While the dollar value is hard to come by, some doctors say that these lists have attracted new patients to their practice.

Sarah St. Louis, MD, a physician manager of Associates in Urogynecology, is one of Orlando Style magazine’s Doctors of the Year and Orlando Family Magazine’s Top Doctors.

Several new patients have told her that they read about her in the magazines’ Top Doctor lists. “Urogynecology is not a well-known specialty – it’s a helpful way to get the word out about the women’s health specialty and what I do,” said Dr. St. Louis, an early career physician who started her practice in 2017.

The additional patient revenue has been worth the cost of displaying her profile in Orlando Style, which was about $800 for a half-page spread with her photo.

Top Doctor lists also work well for specialty practices whose patients can self-refer, such as plastic surgery, dermatology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and geriatric medicine, said Andrea Eliscu, RN, founder and president of Medical Marketing in Orlando.

Being in a competitive market also matters. If a practice is the only one in town, those doctors may not need the publicity as much as doctors in an urban practice that faces stiff competition.
 

How do doctors get on these lists?

In most cases, doctors have to be nominated by their peers, a process that some say is flawed because it may shut out doctors who are less popular or well-connected. 

Forty-eight regional magazines, including Chicago magazine and Philadelphia Magazine , partner with Castle Connolly to use their online Top Doctor database of more than 61,000 physicians in every major metropolitan area, said Steve Leibforth, managing director of Castle Connolly’s Top Doctors.

The company says it sends annual surveys to tens of thousands of practicing doctors asking them to nominate colleagues in their specialty. The nominated doctors are vetted by Castle Connolly’s physician-led research team on several criteria including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history, and outcomes data when available, said Mr. Leibforth.

Washingtonian magazine says it sends annual online surveys to 13,500 physicians in the DC metro area asking them to nominate one colleague in their specialty. The top vote-getters in each of 39 categories are designated Top Doctors.

Orlando Family Magazine  says its annual Top Doctor selections are based on reader polls and doctor nominations.

Consumers’ Research Council of America uses a point system based on each year the doctor has been in practice, education and continuing education, board certification, and membership in professional medical societies. 

Doctors have many ways to promote that they’re listed as a “top” doctor. Dr. St. Louis takes advantage of the magazine’s free reprints, which she puts in her waiting room.

Others buy plaques to hang up in their waiting rooms or offices and announce the distinction on their websites, blogs, or social media. “They have to maximize the magazine distinction or it’s worthless,” said Ms. Eliscu.

Employers also like to spread the word when their doctors make it on “Top Doctor” lists.

“With Emory physicians making up nearly 50 percent of the list, that’s more than any other health system in Atlanta,” said an Emory University press release after nearly half of the university’s doctors made the Top Doctors list in Atlanta magazine.
 

Patients may be impressed: What about your peers?

Dr. St. Louis said that making some of these lists is less impressive than having a peer-reviewed journal article or receiving professional awards.

“Just because a physician is listed in a magazine as a ‘top doctor’ does not mean they are the best. There are far more medical, clinical, and scientific points to consider than just a pretty picture in a style magazine,” she said.  

Wanda Filer, MD, MBA, who practiced family medicine until last year when she became chief medical officer for VaxCare in Orlando, said she ignores the many congratulatory letters in the mail announcing that she’s made one list or another.

“I don’t put much credence in the lists. I get notifications fairly often, and to me it always looks like they’re trying to sell a plaque. I’d rather let my work speak for itself.”

Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, president and CEO of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs and a paid strategic adviser to RYTE, a data-driven site for “best doctors” and “best hospitals,” said he received several of these “top doctor” awards when he was a professor of otolaryngology at the University of Colorado. 

He has been critical of these awards for some time. “These doctor beauty pageants may be good for business but have little value for patients.”

He would like to see a new approach that is driven by data and what patients value. “If I have a lump in my thyroid, I want to know the best doctor to treat me based on outcomes data.”

He said a good rating system would include a data-driven approach based on treatment outcomes, publicly available data, price transparency, and patient values.

Whether a physician feels honored to be named a top physician or sees little value in it, most doctors are aware of the list’s marketing value for their practices and many choose to make use of it.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been a flattening of sleep apnea–related mortality rates in the United States over the past 10 years. The exception is among Black men, for whom mortality from sleep apnea has continuously increased over the past 21 years, new research shows.

“OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) has been recognized as an important cause of medical morbidity and mortality and contributes to the development of systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and abnormalities in glucose metabolism,” noted Yu-Che Lee, MD, University at Buffalo–Catholic Health System, Buffalo, N.Y., and colleagues.

“This study provides the first systematic assessment and demonstrates remarkable demographic disparities of age-adjusted sleep apnea–related mortality in the U.S., with higher rates in males than females and Blacks than Whites,” they concluded.

The study was published online in Sleep Medicine.
 

Twenty-one year interval

Data on sleep apnea–related mortality were obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics and were provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years 1999-2019. Over that 21-year interval, sleep apnea was documented as the underlying cause of death in 17,053 decedents, including 2,593 Black patients and 14,127 White patients.

The age-adjusted mortality rate attributed to sleep apnea was 2.5 per 1,000,000 population. The mortality rate was higher for men, at 3.1 per 1,000,000, than among women, 1.9 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). For both sexes, “unadjusted mortality rates were higher in groups aged ≥ 35 years, and the highest mortality rates were observed in groups aged 75-84,” the authors noted. The rate was 11.3 per 1,000,000 for those aged 75-84 and 13.3 per 1,000,000 for those older than 85.

This was also true among Black and White patients, the authors added, although the age-adjusted mortality rate was higher among Black patients than among other racial groups, at 3.5 per 1,000,000 (P < .001). “Over the 21-year study period, the overall age-adjusted mortality rate rose from 1.2 per 1,000,000 population in 1999 to 2.8 per 1,000,000 in 2019,” Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. While the annual percentage change in sleep apnea–related mortality rose by 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4%-12.0%) between 1999 and 2018, no significant change was observed between 2008 and 2019.

On the other hand, when examined by race and sex, age-adjusted mortality rates increased significantly by an annual percentage change of 7.5% (95% CI, 3.3%-11.9%) among Black women and by 8.2% (95% CI, 6.8%-9.6%) between 1999 and 2009 in White men and by 11.5% (95% CI, 8.9%-14.1%) in White women. “Again, these uptrends were no longer observed after that time interval,” the authors stressed.

Only among Black men was there no turning point in age-adjusted mortality rates; they experienced a steady, significant, 2.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-4.2%) annual percent increase in age-adjusted mortality rate between 1999 and 2019. The highest age-adjusted mortality rate for Black persons was recorded in Indiana, at 6.5 per 1,000,000 population; Utah recorded the highest mortality rate for White persons, at 5.7 per 1,000,000.

For both Black persons and White persons, the lowest mortality rates were in New York, at 1.2 per 1,000,000 and 1.5 per 1,000,000, respectively. Among four geographic regions analyzed, the highest age-adjusted mortality rates were in the Midwest for both sexes; Black men in the West and those in three other regional groups in the Northwest had the lowest mortality rates.
 

Multiple causes of death

Black women were more likely to have multiple causes of death, including cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. White women were more likely to die of arrhythmia, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and depression. Black men were also more likely to die of cardiac arrest, hypertension, and obesity; arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were more common in White men.

The authors pointed out that continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the mainstay of therapy for adults with OSA, but many studies have demonstrated decreased CPAP adherence among Black persons. For example, one report indicated that Black persons use CPAP on average 92 minutes less a day after 1 month of therapy than do White persons, for reasons that are not well understood. Asked by this news organization why Black men are so adversely affected by sleep apnea, Dr. Lee pointed out that studies have shown that sleep apnea is more severe in Black men when first diagnosed.

“We know that the severity of sleep apnea is a risk factor for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes,” he said, “so maybe delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, and noncompliance with CPAP among Black men may help explain why mortality from sleep apnea among Black men has continued to increase.” Why nonadherence to CPAP is higher among Black men is also not clear. Even when access to CPAP is equal for Black patients and White patients, studies have found that rates of noncompliance to CPAP are higher among Black persons than among White patients.

“This is again a hypothesis,” Dr. Lee emphasized, “but perhaps health literacy among Blacks is lower than it is among White patients, and they may not realize that CPAP can improve health outcomes from sleep apnea,” he suggested. The use of CPAP requires a high level of self-advocacy, which might explain part of their noncompliance.

Other health behaviors and environmental factors may contribute to the tendency among Black patients to be noncompliant with CPAP. “I think this is the first study to show that there is a significant racial disparity in mortality from sleep apnea among Black males, and it should give physicians some insight into the problem; they can develop strategies or interventions to try and reduce racial disparities in outcomes from sleep apnea,” Dr. Lee said.

“So, this study is only the beginning, and we need to have more insight and strategies to improve outcomes among Black males,” he affirmed.

Asked to comment on the findings, Diego Mazzotti, PhD, said the study helps bring attention to existing health disparities related to sleep disorders. “Some of the trends observed by the authors seem to explain the increased recognition that sleep apnea may be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Mazzotti, assistant professor in the division of medical informatics at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“Trends in certain minority groups and certain regions in the U.S. suggest that physicians need to recognize the impact of untreated sleep apnea on the cardiovascular health of these patients,” he said.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Mazzotti have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an acceptable level? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an acceptable level? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an acceptable level? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution in bariatric surgery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

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

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

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

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

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

Gastric band

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Gastric sleeve

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Gastric bypass

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

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

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution in bariatric surgery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

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

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

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

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

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

Gastric band

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Gastric sleeve

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Gastric bypass

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

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

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evolution in bariatric surgery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another key factor: Metabolic ‘reset’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Postop lifestyle changes critical to success

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should band patients convert to sleeve or bypass?

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

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

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

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

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

Gastric band

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Gastric sleeve

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

Gastric bypass

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

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

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

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

Advantages:

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

Disadvantages:

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

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

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher 2-mg dose of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) for adults with type 2 diabetes, giving a higher-dose alternative to the previous maximum 1-mg dose of semaglutide, administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly.

Semaglutide is currently available as 0.5-mg and 1-mg doses.

Results from the pivotal SUSTAIN FORTE study of the 2-mg dose (which, like lower-dose semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, comes in a single-use pen injector) showed that when compared head-to-head with a 1-mg/week dose in a 40-week study with 961 randomized patients, the 2-mg regimen led to a significant average incremental reduction in A1c levels of 0.23 percentage points. The 2-mg dose also produced a significant incremental increase in weight loss, with patients losing 0.93 kg more on the higher dose.

The 2-mg dose gives patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians an “additional option” when a bigger “shift” in blood glucose is needed, said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, who was lead investigator for SUSTAIN FORTE, in a written statement.

As well as reducing glucose levels, semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and known cardiovascular disease.

Semaglutide was approved as a 2.4-mg injectable dose, as Wegovy, in 2021 for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

SUSTAIN FORTE and other trials of semaglutide were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. SURPASS-2 and other trials of tirzepatide were sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Frias was lead investigator for both SUSTAIN FORTE and SURPASS-2, as well as an investigator for other trials sponsored by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher 2-mg dose of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) for adults with type 2 diabetes, giving a higher-dose alternative to the previous maximum 1-mg dose of semaglutide, administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly.

Semaglutide is currently available as 0.5-mg and 1-mg doses.

Results from the pivotal SUSTAIN FORTE study of the 2-mg dose (which, like lower-dose semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, comes in a single-use pen injector) showed that when compared head-to-head with a 1-mg/week dose in a 40-week study with 961 randomized patients, the 2-mg regimen led to a significant average incremental reduction in A1c levels of 0.23 percentage points. The 2-mg dose also produced a significant incremental increase in weight loss, with patients losing 0.93 kg more on the higher dose.

The 2-mg dose gives patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians an “additional option” when a bigger “shift” in blood glucose is needed, said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, who was lead investigator for SUSTAIN FORTE, in a written statement.

As well as reducing glucose levels, semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and known cardiovascular disease.

Semaglutide was approved as a 2.4-mg injectable dose, as Wegovy, in 2021 for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

SUSTAIN FORTE and other trials of semaglutide were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. SURPASS-2 and other trials of tirzepatide were sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Frias was lead investigator for both SUSTAIN FORTE and SURPASS-2, as well as an investigator for other trials sponsored by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a higher 2-mg dose of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) for adults with type 2 diabetes, giving a higher-dose alternative to the previous maximum 1-mg dose of semaglutide, administered by subcutaneous injection once weekly.

Semaglutide is currently available as 0.5-mg and 1-mg doses.

Results from the pivotal SUSTAIN FORTE study of the 2-mg dose (which, like lower-dose semaglutide for type 2 diabetes, comes in a single-use pen injector) showed that when compared head-to-head with a 1-mg/week dose in a 40-week study with 961 randomized patients, the 2-mg regimen led to a significant average incremental reduction in A1c levels of 0.23 percentage points. The 2-mg dose also produced a significant incremental increase in weight loss, with patients losing 0.93 kg more on the higher dose.

The 2-mg dose gives patients with type 2 diabetes and clinicians an “additional option” when a bigger “shift” in blood glucose is needed, said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, National Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, who was lead investigator for SUSTAIN FORTE, in a written statement.

As well as reducing glucose levels, semaglutide has been shown to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and known cardiovascular disease.

Semaglutide was approved as a 2.4-mg injectable dose, as Wegovy, in 2021 for weight loss in patients with overweight or obesity.

SUSTAIN FORTE and other trials of semaglutide were sponsored by Novo Nordisk. SURPASS-2 and other trials of tirzepatide were sponsored by Lilly. Dr. Frias was lead investigator for both SUSTAIN FORTE and SURPASS-2, as well as an investigator for other trials sponsored by Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and other companies.

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration today authorized Americans over the age of 50 to receive a second COVID-19 booster shot, even though many top infectious disease experts questioned the need before the agency’s decision.

The FDA granted emergency use authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna to offer the second booster – and fourth shot overall – for adults over 50 as well as those over 18 with compromised immune systems.

The Centers for Control and Prevention must still sign off before those doses start reaching American arms. That approval could come at any time.

“The general consensus, certainly the CDC’s consensus, is that the current vaccines are still really quite effective against Omicron and this new BA.2 variant in keeping people out of the hospital, and preventing the development of severe disease,” William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville said prior to the FDA’s announcement March 29.

Of the 217.4 million Americans who are “fully vaccinated,” i.e., received two doses of either Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, only 45% have also received a booster shot, according to the CDC.

“Given that, there’s no need at the moment for the general population to get a fourth inoculation,” Dr. Schaffner says. “Our current focus ought to be on making sure that as many people as possible get that [first] booster who are eligible.”

Monica Gandhi, MD, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, agreed that another booster for everyone was unnecessary. The only people who would need a fourth shot (or third, if they had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine initially) are those over age 65 or 70 years, Dr. Gandhi says.

“Older people need those antibodies up high because they’re more susceptible to severe breakthroughs,” she said, also before the latest development.
 

To boost or not to boost

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, said the timing of a booster and who should be eligible depends on what the nation is trying to achieve with its vaccination strategy.

“Is the goal to prevent any symptomatic infection with COVID-19, is the goal to prevent the spread of COVID-19, or is the goal to prevent severe disease that requires hospitalization?” asked Dr. Kuritzkes.

The current vaccine — with a booster — has prevented severe disease, he said.

An Israeli study showed, for instance, that a third Pfizer dose was 93% effective against hospitalization, 92% effective against severe illness, and 81% effective against death.

A just-published study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that a booster of the Pfizer vaccine was 95% effective against COVID-19 infection and that it did not raise any new safety issues.

A small Israeli study, also published in NEJM, of a fourth Pfizer dose given to health care workers found that it prevented symptomatic infection and illness, but that it was much less effective than previous doses — maybe 65% effective against symptomatic illness, the authors write.

Giving Americans another booster now — which has been shown to lose some effectiveness after about 4 months — means it might not offer protection this fall and winter, when there could be a seasonal surge of the virus, Dr. Kuritzkes says.

And, even if people receive boosters every few months, they are still likely to get a mild respiratory virus infection, he said.

“I’m pretty convinced that we cannot boost ourselves out of this pandemic,” said Dr. Kuritzkes. “We need to first of all ensure there’s global immunization so that all the people who have not been vaccinated at all get vaccinated. That’s far more important than boosting people a fourth time.”
 

Booster confusion

The April 6 FDA meeting of the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee comes as the two major COVID vaccine makers — Pfizer and Moderna — have applied for emergency use authorization for an additional booster.

Pfizer had asked for authorization for a fourth shot in patients over age 65 years, while Moderna wanted a booster to be available to all Americans over 18. The FDA instead granted authorization to both companies for those over 50 and anyone 18 or older who is immunocompromised.

What this means for the committee’s April 6 meeting is not clear. The original agenda says the committee will consider the evidence on safety and effectiveness of the additional vaccine doses and discuss how to set up a process — similar to that used for the influenza vaccine — to be able to determine the makeup of COVID vaccines as new variants emerge. That could lay the groundwork for an annual COVID shot, if needed.

The FDA advisers will not make recommendations nor vote on whether — and which — Americans should get a COVID booster. That is the job of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

The last time a booster was considered, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, overrode the committee and recommended that all Americans — not just older individuals — get an additional COVID shot, which became the first booster.

That past action worries Dr. Gandhi, who calls it confusing, and says it may have contributed to the fact that less than half of Americans have since chosen to get a booster.

Dr. Schaffner says he expects the FDA to authorize emergency use for fourth doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but he doesn’t think the CDC committee will recommend routine use. As was seen before, however, the CDC director does not have to follow the committee’s advice.

The members of ACIP “might be more conservative or narrower in scope in terms of recommending who needs to be boosted and when boosting is appropriate,” Dr. Kuritzkes says.

Dr. Gandhi says she’s concerned the FDA’s deliberations could be swayed by Moderna and Pfizer’s influence and that “pharmaceutical companies are going to have more of a say than they should in the scientific process.”

There are similar worries for Dr. Schaffner. He says he’s “a bit grumpy” that the vaccine makers have been using press releases to argue for boosters.

“Press releases are no way to make vaccine recommendations,” Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he “would advise [vaccine makers] to sit down and be quiet and let the FDA and CDC advisory committee do their thing.”

Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, however, told WebMD last week that the signs point to why a fourth shot may be needed.

“We see waning of effectiveness, antibody levels come down, and certainly effectiveness against Omicron comes down in 3 to 6 months,” Burton said. “The natural history, from what we’re seeing around the world, is that BA.2 is definitely here, it’s highly transmissible, and I think we are going to get an additional wave of BA.2 here in the United States.”

Another wave is coming, he said, and “I think there will be waning of effectiveness. We need to be prepared for that, so that’s why we need the fourth dose.”
 

Supply issues?

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom has begun offering boosters to anyone over 75, and Sweden’s health authority has recommended a fourth shot to people over age 80.

That puts pressure on the United States — at least on its politicians and policymakers — to, in a sense, keep up, said the infectious disease specialists.

Indeed, the White House has been keeping fourth shots in the news, warning that it is running out of money to ensure that all Americans would have access to one, if recommended.

On March 23, outgoing White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said the federal government had enough vaccine for the immunocompromised to get a fourth dose “and, if authorized in the coming weeks, enough supply for fourth doses for our most vulnerable, including seniors.”

But he warned that without congressional approval of a COVID-19 funding package, “We can’t procure the necessary vaccine supply to support fourth shots for all Americans.”

Mr. Zients also noted that other countries, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines had already secured future booster doses and added, “We should be securing additional supply right now.”

Dr. Schaffner says that while it would be nice to “have a booster on the shelf,” the United States needs to put more effort into creating a globally-coordinated process for ensuring that vaccines match circulating strains and that they are manufactured on a timely basis.

He says he and others “have been reminding the public that the COVID pandemic may indeed be diminishing and moving into the endemic, but that doesn’t mean COVID is over or finished or disappeared.”

Dr. Schaffner says that it may be that “perhaps we’d need a periodic reminder to our immune system to remain protected. In other words, we might have to get boosted perhaps annually like we do with influenza.”

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