Cardiology

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common inherited condition characterized by abnormal asymmetric left ventricular (LV) thickening. This can lead to LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, which has important implications for anesthesia management. This article describes a case of previously undiagnosed HCM discovered during a preoperative physical examination prior to a routine surveillance colonoscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 55-year-old Army veteran with a history of a sessile serrated colon adenoma presented to the preadmission testing clinic prior to planned surveillance colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. His medical history included untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea (53 apnea-hypopnea index score), diet-controlled hypertension, prediabetes (6.3% hemoglobin A_1c), hypogonadism, and obesity (41 body mass index). Medications included semaglutide 1.7 mg injected subcutaneously weekly and testosterone 200 mg injected intramuscularly every 2 weeks, as well as lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 10 to 12.5 mg daily, which had recently been discontinued because his blood pressure had improved with a low-sodium diet.

A review of systems was unremarkable except for progressive weight gain. The patient had no family history of sudden cardiac death. On physical examination, the patient’s blood pressure was 119/81 mm Hg, pulse was 86 beats/min, and respiratory rate was 18 breaths/min. The patient was clinically euvolemic, with no jugular venous distention or peripheral edema, and his lungs were clear to auscultation. There was, however, a soft, nonradiating grade 2/6 systolic murmur that had not been previously documented. The murmur decreased substantially with the Valsalva maneuver, with no change in hand grip.

Laboratory studies revealed hemoglobin and renal function were within the reference range. A routine 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was unremarkable. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed moderate pulmonary hypertension (59 mm Hg right ventricular systolic pressure), asymmetric LV hypertrophy (2.1 cm septal thickness), and severe LVOT obstruction (131.8 mm Hg gradient). Severe systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve was also present. The LV ejection fraction was 60% to 65%, with normal cavity size and systolic function. These findings were consistent with severe hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Upon more detailed questioning, the patient reported that over the previous 5 years he had experienced gradually decreasing exercise tolerance and mild dyspnea on exertion, particularly in hot weather, which he attributed to weight gain. He also reported a presyncopal episode the previous month while working in his garage in hot weather for a prolonged period of time.

The patient’s elective colonoscopy was canceled, and he was referred to cardiology. While awaiting cardiac consultation, he was instructed to maintain good hydration and avoid any heavy physical activity beyond walking. He was told not to resume his use of lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide. A screening 7-day Holter monitor showed no ventricular or supraventricular ectopy. After cardiology consultation, the patient was referred to a HCM specialty clinic, where a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed severe asymmetric hypertrophy with resting obstruction (Figures 1-4). Treatment options were discussed with the patient, and he underwent a trial with the Β—blocker metoprolol 50 mg daily, which he could not tolerate. Verapamil extended-release 180 mg orally once daily was then initiated; however, his dyspnea persisted. He was amenable to surgical therapy and underwent septal myectomy, with 12 g of septal myocardium removed. He did well postoperatively, with a follow-up echocardiogram showing normal LV systolic function and no LVOT gradient detectable at rest or with Valsalva maneuver. His fatigue and exertional dyspnea significantly improved. Once the patient underwent septal myectomy and was determined to have no detectable LVOT gradient, he was approved for colonoscopy which has been scheduled but not completed.

DISCUSSION

Once thought rare, HCM is now considered to be a relatively common inherited disorder, occurring in about 1 in 500 persons, with some suggesting that the actual prevalence is closer to 1 in 200 persons.^1,2 Most often caused by mutations in ≥ 1 of 11 genes responsible for encoding cardiac sarcomere proteins, HCM is characterized by abnormal LV thickening without chamber enlargement in the absence of any identifiable cause, such as aortic valve stenosis or uncontrolled hypertension. The hypertrophy is often asymmetric, and in cases of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, dynamic LVOT obstruction can occur (known as HOCM). The condition is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expression and is associated with myocardial fiber disarray, which can occur years before symptom onset.³ This myocardial disarray can lead to remodeling and an increased wall-to-lumen ratio of the coronary arteries, resulting in impaired coronary reserve.

Depending on the degree of LVOT obstruction, patients with HCM may be classified as nonobstructive, labile, or obstructive at rest. Patients without obstruction have an outflow gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg that is not provoked with Valsalva maneuver, administration of amyl nitrite, or exercise treadmill testing.³ Patients classified as labile do not have LVOT obstruction at rest, but obstruction may be induced by provocative measures. Finally, about one-third of patients with HCM will have LVOT gradients of > 30 mm Hg at rest. These patients are at increased risk for progression to symptomatic heart failure and may be candidates for surgical myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation.⁴ The patient in this case had a resting LVOT gradient of 131.8 mm Hg on echocardiography. The magnitude of this gradient placed the patient at a significantly higher risk of ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.⁵

Wall thickness also has prognostic implications. ⁶ Although any area of the myocardium can be affected, the septum is involved in about 90% cases. In their series of 48 patients followed over 6.5 years, Spirito et al found that the risk of sudden death in patients with HCM increased as wall thickness increased. For patients with a wall thickness of < 15 mm, the risk of death was 0 per 1000 person-years; however, this increased to 18.2 per 1000 person-years for patients with a wall thickness of > 30 mm.⁷

While many patients with HCM are asymptomatic, others may report dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, presyncope/ syncope, postural lightheadedness, fatigue, or edema. Symptomatology, however, is quite variable and does not necessarily correlate with the degree of outflow obstruction. Surprisingly, some patients with significant LVOT may have minimal symptoms, such as the patient in this case, while others with a lesser degree of LVOT obstruction may be very symptomatic.^3,4

Physical examination of a patient with HCM may be normal or may reveal nonspecific findings such as a fourth heart sound or a systolic murmur. In general, physical examination abnormalities are related to LVOT obstruction. Those patients without significant outflow obstruction may have a normal cardiac examination. While patients with HCM may have a variety of systolic murmurs, the 2 most common are those related to outflow tract obstruction and mitral regurgitation caused by systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve.⁴ The systolic murmur associated with significant LVOT obstruction has been described as a harsh, crescendo-decrescendo type that begins just after S1 and is heard best at the apex and lower left sternal border.⁴ It may radiate to the axilla and base but not generally into the neck. The murmur usually increases with Valsalva maneuver and decreases with handgrip or going from a standing to a sitting/ squatting position. The initial examination of the patient in this case was not suggestive of HOCM, as confirmed by 2 practitioners (a cardiologist and an internist), each with > 30 years of clinical experience. This may have been related to the patient’s hydration status at the time, with Valsalva maneuver increasing obstruction to the point of reduced flow.

About 90% of patients with HCM will have abnormalities on ECG, most commonly LV hypertrophy with a strain pattern. Other ECG findings include: (1) prominent abnormal Q waves, particularly in the inferior (II, III, and aVF) and lateral leads (I, aVL, and V4-V6), reflecting depolarization of a hypertrophied septum; (2) left axis deviation; (3) deeply inverted T waves in leads V2 through V4; and (4) P wave abnormalities indicative of left atrial (LA) or biatrial enlargement. ⁸ It is notable that the patient in this case had a normal ECG, given that a minority of patients with HCM have been shown to have a normal ECG.⁹

Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing HCM. Diagnostic criteria include the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy (most commonly with anterior septal involvement), systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve, a nondilated LV cavity, septal immobility, and premature closure of the aortic valve. LV thickness is measured at both the septum and free wall; values ≥ 15 mm, with a septal-to-free wall thickness ratio of ≥ 1.3, are suggestive of HCM. Asymmetric LV hypertrophy can also be seen in other segments besides the septum, such as the apex.¹⁰

HCM/HOCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The condition also contributes to significant functional morbidity due to heart failure and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke. Treatments tend to focus on symptom relief and slowing disease progression and include the use of medications such as Β—blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and the myosin inhibitor mavacamten.¹¹ Select patients, such as those with severe LVOT obstruction and symptoms despite treatment with Β—blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, may be offered septal myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation, coupled with insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients at high arrhythmic risk.^1,12

Patients with HCM, particularly those with LVOT obstruction, pose distinct challenges to the anesthesiologist because they are highly sensitive to decreases in preload and afterload. These patients frequently experience adverse perioperative events such as myocardial ischemia, systemic hypotension, and supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. Acute congestive heart failure may also occur, presumably due to concomitant diastolic dysfunction. Patients with previously unrecognized HCM are of particular concern, as they may manifest unexpected and sudden hypotension with the induction of anesthesia. There may then be a paradoxical response to vasoactive drugs and anesthetic agents, which accentuate LVOT obstruction. In these circumstances, undiagnosed HCM should be considered, and intraoperative rescue transesophageal echocardiography be performed.¹³ Once the diagnosis is confirmed, efforts should be made to reduce myocardial contractility and sympathetic discharge (eg, with Β—blockers), increase afterload (eg, with α1 agonists), and improve preload with adequate hydration. Proper resuscitation of hypotensive patients with HCM requires a thorough understanding of disease pathology, as effective interventions may seem to be counterintuitive. Inotropic agents such as epinephrine are contraindicated in HCM because increased inotropy and chronotropy worsen LVOT obstruction. Volume status is often tenuous; while adequate preload is important, overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may promote heart failure. It is important to keep in mind that even patients without resting LVOT obstruction may develop dynamic obstruction with anesthesia induction due to sudden reductions in preload and afterload. It is also important to note that the degree of LV hypertrophy is directly correlated with arrhythmic sudden death. Those patients with LV wall thickness ≥ 30 mm are at increased risk for potentially lethal tachyarrhythmias in the operating room.¹⁴

These considerations reinforce the need for proper preoperative identification of patients with HCM. Heightened awareness is key, given the fact that HCM is relatively common and tends to be underdiagnosed in the general population. These patients are generally young, otherwise healthy, and often undergo minor operative procedures in outpatient settings. It is incumbent upon the preoperative evaluator to take a thorough medical history and perform a careful physical examination. Clues to the diagnosis include exertional dyspnea, fatigue, angina, syncope/presyncope, or a family history of sudden cardiac death or HCM. A systolic ejection murmur, particularly one that increases with standing or Valsalva maneuver, and decreases with squatting or handgrip may also raise clinical suspicion. These patients should undergo a full cardiac evaluation, including echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM is a common condition that is important to diagnose in the preoperative clinic. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic complications during induction of anesthesia due to the sudden reduction in preload and afterload, which may cause a significant increase in LVOT obstruction. A high index of suspicion is essential, as clinical diagnosis can be challenging. The physical examination may be deceiving and symptoms are often subtle and nonspecific. It is imperative to alert the anesthesiologist before surgery so the complex hemodynamic management of patients with HOCM can be appropriately managed.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common inherited condition characterized by abnormal asymmetric left ventricular (LV) thickening. This can lead to LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, which has important implications for anesthesia management. This article describes a case of previously undiagnosed HCM discovered during a preoperative physical examination prior to a routine surveillance colonoscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 55-year-old Army veteran with a history of a sessile serrated colon adenoma presented to the preadmission testing clinic prior to planned surveillance colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. His medical history included untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea (53 apnea-hypopnea index score), diet-controlled hypertension, prediabetes (6.3% hemoglobin A_1c), hypogonadism, and obesity (41 body mass index). Medications included semaglutide 1.7 mg injected subcutaneously weekly and testosterone 200 mg injected intramuscularly every 2 weeks, as well as lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 10 to 12.5 mg daily, which had recently been discontinued because his blood pressure had improved with a low-sodium diet.

A review of systems was unremarkable except for progressive weight gain. The patient had no family history of sudden cardiac death. On physical examination, the patient’s blood pressure was 119/81 mm Hg, pulse was 86 beats/min, and respiratory rate was 18 breaths/min. The patient was clinically euvolemic, with no jugular venous distention or peripheral edema, and his lungs were clear to auscultation. There was, however, a soft, nonradiating grade 2/6 systolic murmur that had not been previously documented. The murmur decreased substantially with the Valsalva maneuver, with no change in hand grip.

Laboratory studies revealed hemoglobin and renal function were within the reference range. A routine 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was unremarkable. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed moderate pulmonary hypertension (59 mm Hg right ventricular systolic pressure), asymmetric LV hypertrophy (2.1 cm septal thickness), and severe LVOT obstruction (131.8 mm Hg gradient). Severe systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve was also present. The LV ejection fraction was 60% to 65%, with normal cavity size and systolic function. These findings were consistent with severe hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Upon more detailed questioning, the patient reported that over the previous 5 years he had experienced gradually decreasing exercise tolerance and mild dyspnea on exertion, particularly in hot weather, which he attributed to weight gain. He also reported a presyncopal episode the previous month while working in his garage in hot weather for a prolonged period of time.

The patient’s elective colonoscopy was canceled, and he was referred to cardiology. While awaiting cardiac consultation, he was instructed to maintain good hydration and avoid any heavy physical activity beyond walking. He was told not to resume his use of lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide. A screening 7-day Holter monitor showed no ventricular or supraventricular ectopy. After cardiology consultation, the patient was referred to a HCM specialty clinic, where a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed severe asymmetric hypertrophy with resting obstruction (Figures 1-4). Treatment options were discussed with the patient, and he underwent a trial with the Β—blocker metoprolol 50 mg daily, which he could not tolerate. Verapamil extended-release 180 mg orally once daily was then initiated; however, his dyspnea persisted. He was amenable to surgical therapy and underwent septal myectomy, with 12 g of septal myocardium removed. He did well postoperatively, with a follow-up echocardiogram showing normal LV systolic function and no LVOT gradient detectable at rest or with Valsalva maneuver. His fatigue and exertional dyspnea significantly improved. Once the patient underwent septal myectomy and was determined to have no detectable LVOT gradient, he was approved for colonoscopy which has been scheduled but not completed.

DISCUSSION

Once thought rare, HCM is now considered to be a relatively common inherited disorder, occurring in about 1 in 500 persons, with some suggesting that the actual prevalence is closer to 1 in 200 persons.^1,2 Most often caused by mutations in ≥ 1 of 11 genes responsible for encoding cardiac sarcomere proteins, HCM is characterized by abnormal LV thickening without chamber enlargement in the absence of any identifiable cause, such as aortic valve stenosis or uncontrolled hypertension. The hypertrophy is often asymmetric, and in cases of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, dynamic LVOT obstruction can occur (known as HOCM). The condition is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expression and is associated with myocardial fiber disarray, which can occur years before symptom onset.³ This myocardial disarray can lead to remodeling and an increased wall-to-lumen ratio of the coronary arteries, resulting in impaired coronary reserve.

Depending on the degree of LVOT obstruction, patients with HCM may be classified as nonobstructive, labile, or obstructive at rest. Patients without obstruction have an outflow gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg that is not provoked with Valsalva maneuver, administration of amyl nitrite, or exercise treadmill testing.³ Patients classified as labile do not have LVOT obstruction at rest, but obstruction may be induced by provocative measures. Finally, about one-third of patients with HCM will have LVOT gradients of > 30 mm Hg at rest. These patients are at increased risk for progression to symptomatic heart failure and may be candidates for surgical myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation.⁴ The patient in this case had a resting LVOT gradient of 131.8 mm Hg on echocardiography. The magnitude of this gradient placed the patient at a significantly higher risk of ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.⁵

Wall thickness also has prognostic implications. ⁶ Although any area of the myocardium can be affected, the septum is involved in about 90% cases. In their series of 48 patients followed over 6.5 years, Spirito et al found that the risk of sudden death in patients with HCM increased as wall thickness increased. For patients with a wall thickness of < 15 mm, the risk of death was 0 per 1000 person-years; however, this increased to 18.2 per 1000 person-years for patients with a wall thickness of > 30 mm.⁷

While many patients with HCM are asymptomatic, others may report dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, presyncope/ syncope, postural lightheadedness, fatigue, or edema. Symptomatology, however, is quite variable and does not necessarily correlate with the degree of outflow obstruction. Surprisingly, some patients with significant LVOT may have minimal symptoms, such as the patient in this case, while others with a lesser degree of LVOT obstruction may be very symptomatic.^3,4

Physical examination of a patient with HCM may be normal or may reveal nonspecific findings such as a fourth heart sound or a systolic murmur. In general, physical examination abnormalities are related to LVOT obstruction. Those patients without significant outflow obstruction may have a normal cardiac examination. While patients with HCM may have a variety of systolic murmurs, the 2 most common are those related to outflow tract obstruction and mitral regurgitation caused by systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve.⁴ The systolic murmur associated with significant LVOT obstruction has been described as a harsh, crescendo-decrescendo type that begins just after S1 and is heard best at the apex and lower left sternal border.⁴ It may radiate to the axilla and base but not generally into the neck. The murmur usually increases with Valsalva maneuver and decreases with handgrip or going from a standing to a sitting/ squatting position. The initial examination of the patient in this case was not suggestive of HOCM, as confirmed by 2 practitioners (a cardiologist and an internist), each with > 30 years of clinical experience. This may have been related to the patient’s hydration status at the time, with Valsalva maneuver increasing obstruction to the point of reduced flow.

About 90% of patients with HCM will have abnormalities on ECG, most commonly LV hypertrophy with a strain pattern. Other ECG findings include: (1) prominent abnormal Q waves, particularly in the inferior (II, III, and aVF) and lateral leads (I, aVL, and V4-V6), reflecting depolarization of a hypertrophied septum; (2) left axis deviation; (3) deeply inverted T waves in leads V2 through V4; and (4) P wave abnormalities indicative of left atrial (LA) or biatrial enlargement. ⁸ It is notable that the patient in this case had a normal ECG, given that a minority of patients with HCM have been shown to have a normal ECG.⁹

Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing HCM. Diagnostic criteria include the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy (most commonly with anterior septal involvement), systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve, a nondilated LV cavity, septal immobility, and premature closure of the aortic valve. LV thickness is measured at both the septum and free wall; values ≥ 15 mm, with a septal-to-free wall thickness ratio of ≥ 1.3, are suggestive of HCM. Asymmetric LV hypertrophy can also be seen in other segments besides the septum, such as the apex.¹⁰

HCM/HOCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The condition also contributes to significant functional morbidity due to heart failure and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke. Treatments tend to focus on symptom relief and slowing disease progression and include the use of medications such as Β—blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and the myosin inhibitor mavacamten.¹¹ Select patients, such as those with severe LVOT obstruction and symptoms despite treatment with Β—blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, may be offered septal myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation, coupled with insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients at high arrhythmic risk.^1,12

Patients with HCM, particularly those with LVOT obstruction, pose distinct challenges to the anesthesiologist because they are highly sensitive to decreases in preload and afterload. These patients frequently experience adverse perioperative events such as myocardial ischemia, systemic hypotension, and supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. Acute congestive heart failure may also occur, presumably due to concomitant diastolic dysfunction. Patients with previously unrecognized HCM are of particular concern, as they may manifest unexpected and sudden hypotension with the induction of anesthesia. There may then be a paradoxical response to vasoactive drugs and anesthetic agents, which accentuate LVOT obstruction. In these circumstances, undiagnosed HCM should be considered, and intraoperative rescue transesophageal echocardiography be performed.¹³ Once the diagnosis is confirmed, efforts should be made to reduce myocardial contractility and sympathetic discharge (eg, with Β—blockers), increase afterload (eg, with α1 agonists), and improve preload with adequate hydration. Proper resuscitation of hypotensive patients with HCM requires a thorough understanding of disease pathology, as effective interventions may seem to be counterintuitive. Inotropic agents such as epinephrine are contraindicated in HCM because increased inotropy and chronotropy worsen LVOT obstruction. Volume status is often tenuous; while adequate preload is important, overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may promote heart failure. It is important to keep in mind that even patients without resting LVOT obstruction may develop dynamic obstruction with anesthesia induction due to sudden reductions in preload and afterload. It is also important to note that the degree of LV hypertrophy is directly correlated with arrhythmic sudden death. Those patients with LV wall thickness ≥ 30 mm are at increased risk for potentially lethal tachyarrhythmias in the operating room.¹⁴

These considerations reinforce the need for proper preoperative identification of patients with HCM. Heightened awareness is key, given the fact that HCM is relatively common and tends to be underdiagnosed in the general population. These patients are generally young, otherwise healthy, and often undergo minor operative procedures in outpatient settings. It is incumbent upon the preoperative evaluator to take a thorough medical history and perform a careful physical examination. Clues to the diagnosis include exertional dyspnea, fatigue, angina, syncope/presyncope, or a family history of sudden cardiac death or HCM. A systolic ejection murmur, particularly one that increases with standing or Valsalva maneuver, and decreases with squatting or handgrip may also raise clinical suspicion. These patients should undergo a full cardiac evaluation, including echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM is a common condition that is important to diagnose in the preoperative clinic. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic complications during induction of anesthesia due to the sudden reduction in preload and afterload, which may cause a significant increase in LVOT obstruction. A high index of suspicion is essential, as clinical diagnosis can be challenging. The physical examination may be deceiving and symptoms are often subtle and nonspecific. It is imperative to alert the anesthesiologist before surgery so the complex hemodynamic management of patients with HOCM can be appropriately managed.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a relatively common inherited condition characterized by abnormal asymmetric left ventricular (LV) thickening. This can lead to LV outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, which has important implications for anesthesia management. This article describes a case of previously undiagnosed HCM discovered during a preoperative physical examination prior to a routine surveillance colonoscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 55-year-old Army veteran with a history of a sessile serrated colon adenoma presented to the preadmission testing clinic prior to planned surveillance colonoscopy under monitored anesthesia care. His medical history included untreated severe obstructive sleep apnea (53 apnea-hypopnea index score), diet-controlled hypertension, prediabetes (6.3% hemoglobin A_1c), hypogonadism, and obesity (41 body mass index). Medications included semaglutide 1.7 mg injected subcutaneously weekly and testosterone 200 mg injected intramuscularly every 2 weeks, as well as lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide 10 to 12.5 mg daily, which had recently been discontinued because his blood pressure had improved with a low-sodium diet.

A review of systems was unremarkable except for progressive weight gain. The patient had no family history of sudden cardiac death. On physical examination, the patient’s blood pressure was 119/81 mm Hg, pulse was 86 beats/min, and respiratory rate was 18 breaths/min. The patient was clinically euvolemic, with no jugular venous distention or peripheral edema, and his lungs were clear to auscultation. There was, however, a soft, nonradiating grade 2/6 systolic murmur that had not been previously documented. The murmur decreased substantially with the Valsalva maneuver, with no change in hand grip.

Laboratory studies revealed hemoglobin and renal function were within the reference range. A routine 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) was unremarkable. A transthoracic echocardiogram revealed moderate pulmonary hypertension (59 mm Hg right ventricular systolic pressure), asymmetric LV hypertrophy (2.1 cm septal thickness), and severe LVOT obstruction (131.8 mm Hg gradient). Severe systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve was also present. The LV ejection fraction was 60% to 65%, with normal cavity size and systolic function. These findings were consistent with severe hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). Upon more detailed questioning, the patient reported that over the previous 5 years he had experienced gradually decreasing exercise tolerance and mild dyspnea on exertion, particularly in hot weather, which he attributed to weight gain. He also reported a presyncopal episode the previous month while working in his garage in hot weather for a prolonged period of time.

The patient’s elective colonoscopy was canceled, and he was referred to cardiology. While awaiting cardiac consultation, he was instructed to maintain good hydration and avoid any heavy physical activity beyond walking. He was told not to resume his use of lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide. A screening 7-day Holter monitor showed no ventricular or supraventricular ectopy. After cardiology consultation, the patient was referred to a HCM specialty clinic, where a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging confirmed severe asymmetric hypertrophy with resting obstruction (Figures 1-4). Treatment options were discussed with the patient, and he underwent a trial with the Β—blocker metoprolol 50 mg daily, which he could not tolerate. Verapamil extended-release 180 mg orally once daily was then initiated; however, his dyspnea persisted. He was amenable to surgical therapy and underwent septal myectomy, with 12 g of septal myocardium removed. He did well postoperatively, with a follow-up echocardiogram showing normal LV systolic function and no LVOT gradient detectable at rest or with Valsalva maneuver. His fatigue and exertional dyspnea significantly improved. Once the patient underwent septal myectomy and was determined to have no detectable LVOT gradient, he was approved for colonoscopy which has been scheduled but not completed.

DISCUSSION

Once thought rare, HCM is now considered to be a relatively common inherited disorder, occurring in about 1 in 500 persons, with some suggesting that the actual prevalence is closer to 1 in 200 persons.^1,2 Most often caused by mutations in ≥ 1 of 11 genes responsible for encoding cardiac sarcomere proteins, HCM is characterized by abnormal LV thickening without chamber enlargement in the absence of any identifiable cause, such as aortic valve stenosis or uncontrolled hypertension. The hypertrophy is often asymmetric, and in cases of asymmetric septal hypertrophy, dynamic LVOT obstruction can occur (known as HOCM). The condition is inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern with variable expression and is associated with myocardial fiber disarray, which can occur years before symptom onset.³ This myocardial disarray can lead to remodeling and an increased wall-to-lumen ratio of the coronary arteries, resulting in impaired coronary reserve.

Depending on the degree of LVOT obstruction, patients with HCM may be classified as nonobstructive, labile, or obstructive at rest. Patients without obstruction have an outflow gradient ≤ 30 mm Hg that is not provoked with Valsalva maneuver, administration of amyl nitrite, or exercise treadmill testing.³ Patients classified as labile do not have LVOT obstruction at rest, but obstruction may be induced by provocative measures. Finally, about one-third of patients with HCM will have LVOT gradients of > 30 mm Hg at rest. These patients are at increased risk for progression to symptomatic heart failure and may be candidates for surgical myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation.⁴ The patient in this case had a resting LVOT gradient of 131.8 mm Hg on echocardiography. The magnitude of this gradient placed the patient at a significantly higher risk of ventricular dysrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.⁵

Wall thickness also has prognostic implications. ⁶ Although any area of the myocardium can be affected, the septum is involved in about 90% cases. In their series of 48 patients followed over 6.5 years, Spirito et al found that the risk of sudden death in patients with HCM increased as wall thickness increased. For patients with a wall thickness of < 15 mm, the risk of death was 0 per 1000 person-years; however, this increased to 18.2 per 1000 person-years for patients with a wall thickness of > 30 mm.⁷

While many patients with HCM are asymptomatic, others may report dyspnea on exertion, orthopnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, presyncope/ syncope, postural lightheadedness, fatigue, or edema. Symptomatology, however, is quite variable and does not necessarily correlate with the degree of outflow obstruction. Surprisingly, some patients with significant LVOT may have minimal symptoms, such as the patient in this case, while others with a lesser degree of LVOT obstruction may be very symptomatic.^3,4

Physical examination of a patient with HCM may be normal or may reveal nonspecific findings such as a fourth heart sound or a systolic murmur. In general, physical examination abnormalities are related to LVOT obstruction. Those patients without significant outflow obstruction may have a normal cardiac examination. While patients with HCM may have a variety of systolic murmurs, the 2 most common are those related to outflow tract obstruction and mitral regurgitation caused by systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve.⁴ The systolic murmur associated with significant LVOT obstruction has been described as a harsh, crescendo-decrescendo type that begins just after S1 and is heard best at the apex and lower left sternal border.⁴ It may radiate to the axilla and base but not generally into the neck. The murmur usually increases with Valsalva maneuver and decreases with handgrip or going from a standing to a sitting/ squatting position. The initial examination of the patient in this case was not suggestive of HOCM, as confirmed by 2 practitioners (a cardiologist and an internist), each with > 30 years of clinical experience. This may have been related to the patient’s hydration status at the time, with Valsalva maneuver increasing obstruction to the point of reduced flow.

About 90% of patients with HCM will have abnormalities on ECG, most commonly LV hypertrophy with a strain pattern. Other ECG findings include: (1) prominent abnormal Q waves, particularly in the inferior (II, III, and aVF) and lateral leads (I, aVL, and V4-V6), reflecting depolarization of a hypertrophied septum; (2) left axis deviation; (3) deeply inverted T waves in leads V2 through V4; and (4) P wave abnormalities indicative of left atrial (LA) or biatrial enlargement. ⁸ It is notable that the patient in this case had a normal ECG, given that a minority of patients with HCM have been shown to have a normal ECG.⁹

Echocardiography plays an important role in diagnosing HCM. Diagnostic criteria include the presence of asymmetric hypertrophy (most commonly with anterior septal involvement), systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve, a nondilated LV cavity, septal immobility, and premature closure of the aortic valve. LV thickness is measured at both the septum and free wall; values ≥ 15 mm, with a septal-to-free wall thickness ratio of ≥ 1.3, are suggestive of HCM. Asymmetric LV hypertrophy can also be seen in other segments besides the septum, such as the apex.¹⁰

HCM/HOCM is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young people. The condition also contributes to significant functional morbidity due to heart failure and increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and subsequent stroke. Treatments tend to focus on symptom relief and slowing disease progression and include the use of medications such as Β—blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and the myosin inhibitor mavacamten.¹¹ Select patients, such as those with severe LVOT obstruction and symptoms despite treatment with Β—blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, may be offered septal myectomy or catheter-based alcohol septal ablation, coupled with insertion of an implantable cardiac defibrillator to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients at high arrhythmic risk.^1,12

Patients with HCM, particularly those with LVOT obstruction, pose distinct challenges to the anesthesiologist because they are highly sensitive to decreases in preload and afterload. These patients frequently experience adverse perioperative events such as myocardial ischemia, systemic hypotension, and supraventricular or ventricular arrhythmias. Acute congestive heart failure may also occur, presumably due to concomitant diastolic dysfunction. Patients with previously unrecognized HCM are of particular concern, as they may manifest unexpected and sudden hypotension with the induction of anesthesia. There may then be a paradoxical response to vasoactive drugs and anesthetic agents, which accentuate LVOT obstruction. In these circumstances, undiagnosed HCM should be considered, and intraoperative rescue transesophageal echocardiography be performed.¹³ Once the diagnosis is confirmed, efforts should be made to reduce myocardial contractility and sympathetic discharge (eg, with Β—blockers), increase afterload (eg, with α1 agonists), and improve preload with adequate hydration. Proper resuscitation of hypotensive patients with HCM requires a thorough understanding of disease pathology, as effective interventions may seem to be counterintuitive. Inotropic agents such as epinephrine are contraindicated in HCM because increased inotropy and chronotropy worsen LVOT obstruction. Volume status is often tenuous; while adequate preload is important, overly aggressive fluid resuscitation may promote heart failure. It is important to keep in mind that even patients without resting LVOT obstruction may develop dynamic obstruction with anesthesia induction due to sudden reductions in preload and afterload. It is also important to note that the degree of LV hypertrophy is directly correlated with arrhythmic sudden death. Those patients with LV wall thickness ≥ 30 mm are at increased risk for potentially lethal tachyarrhythmias in the operating room.¹⁴

These considerations reinforce the need for proper preoperative identification of patients with HCM. Heightened awareness is key, given the fact that HCM is relatively common and tends to be underdiagnosed in the general population. These patients are generally young, otherwise healthy, and often undergo minor operative procedures in outpatient settings. It is incumbent upon the preoperative evaluator to take a thorough medical history and perform a careful physical examination. Clues to the diagnosis include exertional dyspnea, fatigue, angina, syncope/presyncope, or a family history of sudden cardiac death or HCM. A systolic ejection murmur, particularly one that increases with standing or Valsalva maneuver, and decreases with squatting or handgrip may also raise clinical suspicion. These patients should undergo a full cardiac evaluation, including echocardiography.

CONCLUSIONS

HCM is a common condition that is important to diagnose in the preoperative clinic. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic complications during induction of anesthesia due to the sudden reduction in preload and afterload, which may cause a significant increase in LVOT obstruction. A high index of suspicion is essential, as clinical diagnosis can be challenging. The physical examination may be deceiving and symptoms are often subtle and nonspecific. It is imperative to alert the anesthesiologist before surgery so the complex hemodynamic management of patients with HOCM can be appropriately managed.

You could be forgiven if you are confused about how blood pressure (BP) affects dementia. First, you read an article extolling the benefits of BP lowering, then a study about how stopping antihypertensives slows cognitive decline in nursing home residents. It’s enough to make you lose your mind.

The Brain Benefits of BP Lowering

It should be stated unequivocally that you should absolutely treat high BP. It may have once been acceptable to state, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.” But those dark days are long behind us.

In these divided times, at least we can agree that we should treat high BP. The cardiovascular (CV) benefits, in and of themselves, justify the decision. But BP’s relationship with dementia is more complex. There are different types of dementia even though we tend to lump them all into one category. Vascular dementia is driven by the same pathophysiology and risk factors as cardiac disease. It’s intuitive that treating hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking will decrease the risk for stroke and limit the damage to the brain that we see with repeated vascular insults. For Alzheimer’s disease, high BP and other CV risk factors seem to increase the risk even if the mechanism is not fully elucidated.

Estimates suggest that if we could lower the prevalence of hypertension by 25%, there would be 160,000 fewer cases of Alzheimer’s disease. But the data are not as robust as one might hope. A 2021 Cochrane review found that hypertension treatment slowed cognitive decline, but the quality of the evidence was low. Short duration of follow-up, dropouts, crossovers, and other problems with the data precluded any certainty. What’s more, hypertension in midlife is associated with cognitive decline and dementia, but its impact in those over age 70 is less clear. Later in life, or once cognitive impairment has already developed, it may be too late for BP lowering to have any impact.

 

Potential Harms of Lowering BP

All this needs to be weighed against the potential harms of treating hypertension. I will reiterate that hypertension should be treated and treated aggressively for the prevention of CV events. But overtreatment, especially in older patients, is associated with hypotension, falls, and syncope. Older patients are also at risk for polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions. 

When it comes to dementia, there is also a concern that overtreating high BP could make things worse. Hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion could hasten cognitive decline by depriving the brain of that all too necessary oxygen. 

A Korean nationwide survey showed a U-shaped association between BP and Alzheimer’s disease risk in adults (mean age, 67 years), with both high and low BPs associated with a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Though not all studies agree. A post hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND did not find any negative impact of intensive BP lowering on cognitive outcomes or cerebral perfusion in older adults (mean age, 68 years). But it didn’t do much good either. Given the heterogeneity of the data, doubts remain on whether aggressive BP lowering might be detrimental in older patients with comorbidities and preexisting dementia. The obvious corollary then is whether deprescribing hypertensive medications could be beneficial.

A recent publication in JAMA Internal Medicine attempted to address this very question. The cohort study used data from Veterans Affairs nursing home residents (mean age, 78 years) to emulate a randomized trial on deprescribing antihypertensives and cognitive decline. Many of the residents’ cognitive scores worsened over the course of follow-up; however, the decline was less pronounced in the deprescribing group (10% vs 12%). The same group did a similar analysis looking at CV outcomes and found no increased risk for heart attack or stroke with deprescribing BP medications. Taken together, these nursing home data suggest that deprescribing may help slow cognitive decline without the expected trade-off of increased CV events.

 

Deprescribing, Yes or No? 

However, randomized data would obviously be preferable, and these are in short supply. One such trial, the DANTE study, found no benefit to deprescribing in terms of cognition in adults aged 75 years or older with mild cognitive impairment. The study follow-up was only 16 weeks, however, which is hardly enough time to demonstrate any effect, positive or negative. The most that can be said is that it didn’t cause many short-term adverse events.

Perhaps the best conclusion to draw from this somewhat underwhelming collection of data is that lowering high BP is important, but less important the closer we get to the end of life. Hypotension is obviously bad, and overly aggressive BP lowering is going to lead to negative outcomes in older adults because gravity is an unforgiving mistress. 

Deprescribing antihypertensives in older adults is probably not going to cause major negative outcomes, but whether it will do much good in nonhypotensive patients is debatable. The bigger problem is the millions of people with undiagnosed or undertreated hypertension. We would probably have less dementia if we treated hypertension when it does the most good: as a primary-prevention strategy in midlife.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

You could be forgiven if you are confused about how blood pressure (BP) affects dementia. First, you read an article extolling the benefits of BP lowering, then a study about how stopping antihypertensives slows cognitive decline in nursing home residents. It’s enough to make you lose your mind.

The Brain Benefits of BP Lowering

It should be stated unequivocally that you should absolutely treat high BP. It may have once been acceptable to state, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.” But those dark days are long behind us.

In these divided times, at least we can agree that we should treat high BP. The cardiovascular (CV) benefits, in and of themselves, justify the decision. But BP’s relationship with dementia is more complex. There are different types of dementia even though we tend to lump them all into one category. Vascular dementia is driven by the same pathophysiology and risk factors as cardiac disease. It’s intuitive that treating hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking will decrease the risk for stroke and limit the damage to the brain that we see with repeated vascular insults. For Alzheimer’s disease, high BP and other CV risk factors seem to increase the risk even if the mechanism is not fully elucidated.

Estimates suggest that if we could lower the prevalence of hypertension by 25%, there would be 160,000 fewer cases of Alzheimer’s disease. But the data are not as robust as one might hope. A 2021 Cochrane review found that hypertension treatment slowed cognitive decline, but the quality of the evidence was low. Short duration of follow-up, dropouts, crossovers, and other problems with the data precluded any certainty. What’s more, hypertension in midlife is associated with cognitive decline and dementia, but its impact in those over age 70 is less clear. Later in life, or once cognitive impairment has already developed, it may be too late for BP lowering to have any impact.

 

Potential Harms of Lowering BP

All this needs to be weighed against the potential harms of treating hypertension. I will reiterate that hypertension should be treated and treated aggressively for the prevention of CV events. But overtreatment, especially in older patients, is associated with hypotension, falls, and syncope. Older patients are also at risk for polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions. 

When it comes to dementia, there is also a concern that overtreating high BP could make things worse. Hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion could hasten cognitive decline by depriving the brain of that all too necessary oxygen. 

A Korean nationwide survey showed a U-shaped association between BP and Alzheimer’s disease risk in adults (mean age, 67 years), with both high and low BPs associated with a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Though not all studies agree. A post hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND did not find any negative impact of intensive BP lowering on cognitive outcomes or cerebral perfusion in older adults (mean age, 68 years). But it didn’t do much good either. Given the heterogeneity of the data, doubts remain on whether aggressive BP lowering might be detrimental in older patients with comorbidities and preexisting dementia. The obvious corollary then is whether deprescribing hypertensive medications could be beneficial.

A recent publication in JAMA Internal Medicine attempted to address this very question. The cohort study used data from Veterans Affairs nursing home residents (mean age, 78 years) to emulate a randomized trial on deprescribing antihypertensives and cognitive decline. Many of the residents’ cognitive scores worsened over the course of follow-up; however, the decline was less pronounced in the deprescribing group (10% vs 12%). The same group did a similar analysis looking at CV outcomes and found no increased risk for heart attack or stroke with deprescribing BP medications. Taken together, these nursing home data suggest that deprescribing may help slow cognitive decline without the expected trade-off of increased CV events.

 

Deprescribing, Yes or No? 

However, randomized data would obviously be preferable, and these are in short supply. One such trial, the DANTE study, found no benefit to deprescribing in terms of cognition in adults aged 75 years or older with mild cognitive impairment. The study follow-up was only 16 weeks, however, which is hardly enough time to demonstrate any effect, positive or negative. The most that can be said is that it didn’t cause many short-term adverse events.

Perhaps the best conclusion to draw from this somewhat underwhelming collection of data is that lowering high BP is important, but less important the closer we get to the end of life. Hypotension is obviously bad, and overly aggressive BP lowering is going to lead to negative outcomes in older adults because gravity is an unforgiving mistress. 

Deprescribing antihypertensives in older adults is probably not going to cause major negative outcomes, but whether it will do much good in nonhypotensive patients is debatable. The bigger problem is the millions of people with undiagnosed or undertreated hypertension. We would probably have less dementia if we treated hypertension when it does the most good: as a primary-prevention strategy in midlife.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

You could be forgiven if you are confused about how blood pressure (BP) affects dementia. First, you read an article extolling the benefits of BP lowering, then a study about how stopping antihypertensives slows cognitive decline in nursing home residents. It’s enough to make you lose your mind.

The Brain Benefits of BP Lowering

It should be stated unequivocally that you should absolutely treat high BP. It may have once been acceptable to state, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.” But those dark days are long behind us.

In these divided times, at least we can agree that we should treat high BP. The cardiovascular (CV) benefits, in and of themselves, justify the decision. But BP’s relationship with dementia is more complex. There are different types of dementia even though we tend to lump them all into one category. Vascular dementia is driven by the same pathophysiology and risk factors as cardiac disease. It’s intuitive that treating hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and smoking will decrease the risk for stroke and limit the damage to the brain that we see with repeated vascular insults. For Alzheimer’s disease, high BP and other CV risk factors seem to increase the risk even if the mechanism is not fully elucidated.

Estimates suggest that if we could lower the prevalence of hypertension by 25%, there would be 160,000 fewer cases of Alzheimer’s disease. But the data are not as robust as one might hope. A 2021 Cochrane review found that hypertension treatment slowed cognitive decline, but the quality of the evidence was low. Short duration of follow-up, dropouts, crossovers, and other problems with the data precluded any certainty. What’s more, hypertension in midlife is associated with cognitive decline and dementia, but its impact in those over age 70 is less clear. Later in life, or once cognitive impairment has already developed, it may be too late for BP lowering to have any impact.

 

Potential Harms of Lowering BP

All this needs to be weighed against the potential harms of treating hypertension. I will reiterate that hypertension should be treated and treated aggressively for the prevention of CV events. But overtreatment, especially in older patients, is associated with hypotension, falls, and syncope. Older patients are also at risk for polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions. 

When it comes to dementia, there is also a concern that overtreating high BP could make things worse. Hypotension and decreased cerebral perfusion could hasten cognitive decline by depriving the brain of that all too necessary oxygen. 

A Korean nationwide survey showed a U-shaped association between BP and Alzheimer’s disease risk in adults (mean age, 67 years), with both high and low BPs associated with a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Though not all studies agree. A post hoc analysis of SPRINT MIND did not find any negative impact of intensive BP lowering on cognitive outcomes or cerebral perfusion in older adults (mean age, 68 years). But it didn’t do much good either. Given the heterogeneity of the data, doubts remain on whether aggressive BP lowering might be detrimental in older patients with comorbidities and preexisting dementia. The obvious corollary then is whether deprescribing hypertensive medications could be beneficial.

A recent publication in JAMA Internal Medicine attempted to address this very question. The cohort study used data from Veterans Affairs nursing home residents (mean age, 78 years) to emulate a randomized trial on deprescribing antihypertensives and cognitive decline. Many of the residents’ cognitive scores worsened over the course of follow-up; however, the decline was less pronounced in the deprescribing group (10% vs 12%). The same group did a similar analysis looking at CV outcomes and found no increased risk for heart attack or stroke with deprescribing BP medications. Taken together, these nursing home data suggest that deprescribing may help slow cognitive decline without the expected trade-off of increased CV events.

 

Deprescribing, Yes or No? 

However, randomized data would obviously be preferable, and these are in short supply. One such trial, the DANTE study, found no benefit to deprescribing in terms of cognition in adults aged 75 years or older with mild cognitive impairment. The study follow-up was only 16 weeks, however, which is hardly enough time to demonstrate any effect, positive or negative. The most that can be said is that it didn’t cause many short-term adverse events.

Perhaps the best conclusion to draw from this somewhat underwhelming collection of data is that lowering high BP is important, but less important the closer we get to the end of life. Hypotension is obviously bad, and overly aggressive BP lowering is going to lead to negative outcomes in older adults because gravity is an unforgiving mistress. 

Deprescribing antihypertensives in older adults is probably not going to cause major negative outcomes, but whether it will do much good in nonhypotensive patients is debatable. The bigger problem is the millions of people with undiagnosed or undertreated hypertension. We would probably have less dementia if we treated hypertension when it does the most good: as a primary-prevention strategy in midlife.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are associated with an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study also identified a potential novel single-nucleotide polymorphism linked to an elevated risk for the retina condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using data from the All of Us research program to assess the association between lipoprotein and the risk for AMD.
• They analyzed data from 2328 patients with AMD (mean age, 75.5 years; 46.7% women; 84.2% White individuals) and 5028 matched controls (mean age, 75.6 years; 52.5% women; 82.9% White individuals).
• Data were extracted for smoking status, history of hyperlipidemia, use of statins (categorized as hepatically and non-hepatically metabolized), and laboratory values for total triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and HDL levels.
• Data for single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the dysregulation of LDL and HDL metabolism were extracted using the PLINK toolkit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both high and low HDL levels were associated with an increased risk for AMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28 for both; both P < .001), whereas low and high levels of triglyceride and LDL did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk for AMD.
• A history of smoking and statin use showed significant associations with an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.30 and 1.36, respectively; both P < .001).
• Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes associated with HDL metabolism, ABCA1 and LIPC, were negatively associated with the risk for AMD (aOR, 0.88; P = .04 and aOR, 0.86; P = .001, respectively).
• Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a) was identified as a novel single nucleotide polymorphism linked to an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.37; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite conflicting evidence regarding the relationship with elevated HDL and AMD risk, this is to our knowledge the first time a U-shaped relationship with low and high HDL and AMD has been described. In fact, the presence of a U-shaped relationship may explain inconsistency in prior analyses comparing mean HDL levels in AMD and control populations,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jimmy S. Chen, MD, of the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute at the University of California, San Diego. It was published online on January 3, 2025, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the retrospective collection and analysis of data. The use of billing codes for diagnosis extraction may have introduced documentation inaccuracies. The subgroup analysis by severity of AMD was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors was funded by grants from the National Eye Institute (NEI), Research to Prevent Blindness Career Development Award, Robert Machemer MD and International Retinal Research Foundation, and the UC San Diego Academic Senate. Another author reported receiving a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, while a third author received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NEI, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The All of Us Research Program was supported by grants from the NIH and other sources. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are associated with an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study also identified a potential novel single-nucleotide polymorphism linked to an elevated risk for the retina condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using data from the All of Us research program to assess the association between lipoprotein and the risk for AMD.
• They analyzed data from 2328 patients with AMD (mean age, 75.5 years; 46.7% women; 84.2% White individuals) and 5028 matched controls (mean age, 75.6 years; 52.5% women; 82.9% White individuals).
• Data were extracted for smoking status, history of hyperlipidemia, use of statins (categorized as hepatically and non-hepatically metabolized), and laboratory values for total triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and HDL levels.
• Data for single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the dysregulation of LDL and HDL metabolism were extracted using the PLINK toolkit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both high and low HDL levels were associated with an increased risk for AMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28 for both; both P < .001), whereas low and high levels of triglyceride and LDL did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk for AMD.
• A history of smoking and statin use showed significant associations with an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.30 and 1.36, respectively; both P < .001).
• Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes associated with HDL metabolism, ABCA1 and LIPC, were negatively associated with the risk for AMD (aOR, 0.88; P = .04 and aOR, 0.86; P = .001, respectively).
• Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a) was identified as a novel single nucleotide polymorphism linked to an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.37; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite conflicting evidence regarding the relationship with elevated HDL and AMD risk, this is to our knowledge the first time a U-shaped relationship with low and high HDL and AMD has been described. In fact, the presence of a U-shaped relationship may explain inconsistency in prior analyses comparing mean HDL levels in AMD and control populations,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jimmy S. Chen, MD, of the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute at the University of California, San Diego. It was published online on January 3, 2025, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the retrospective collection and analysis of data. The use of billing codes for diagnosis extraction may have introduced documentation inaccuracies. The subgroup analysis by severity of AMD was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors was funded by grants from the National Eye Institute (NEI), Research to Prevent Blindness Career Development Award, Robert Machemer MD and International Retinal Research Foundation, and the UC San Diego Academic Senate. Another author reported receiving a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, while a third author received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NEI, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The All of Us Research Program was supported by grants from the NIH and other sources. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Both low and high levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) are associated with an increased risk for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study also identified a potential novel single-nucleotide polymorphism linked to an elevated risk for the retina condition.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using data from the All of Us research program to assess the association between lipoprotein and the risk for AMD.
• They analyzed data from 2328 patients with AMD (mean age, 75.5 years; 46.7% women; 84.2% White individuals) and 5028 matched controls (mean age, 75.6 years; 52.5% women; 82.9% White individuals).
• Data were extracted for smoking status, history of hyperlipidemia, use of statins (categorized as hepatically and non-hepatically metabolized), and laboratory values for total triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and HDL levels.
• Data for single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with the dysregulation of LDL and HDL metabolism were extracted using the PLINK toolkit.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both high and low HDL levels were associated with an increased risk for AMD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28 for both; both P < .001), whereas low and high levels of triglyceride and LDL did not demonstrate a statistically significant association with the risk for AMD.
• A history of smoking and statin use showed significant associations with an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.30 and 1.36, respectively; both P < .001).
• Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes associated with HDL metabolism, ABCA1 and LIPC, were negatively associated with the risk for AMD (aOR, 0.88; P = .04 and aOR, 0.86; P = .001, respectively).
• Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a) was identified as a novel single nucleotide polymorphism linked to an increased risk for AMD (aOR, 1.37; P = .007).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite conflicting evidence regarding the relationship with elevated HDL and AMD risk, this is to our knowledge the first time a U-shaped relationship with low and high HDL and AMD has been described. In fact, the presence of a U-shaped relationship may explain inconsistency in prior analyses comparing mean HDL levels in AMD and control populations,” the study authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jimmy S. Chen, MD, of the Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology and Shiley Eye Institute at the University of California, San Diego. It was published online on January 3, 2025, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by the retrospective collection and analysis of data. The use of billing codes for diagnosis extraction may have introduced documentation inaccuracies. The subgroup analysis by severity of AMD was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

One of the authors was funded by grants from the National Eye Institute (NEI), Research to Prevent Blindness Career Development Award, Robert Machemer MD and International Retinal Research Foundation, and the UC San Diego Academic Senate. Another author reported receiving a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, while a third author received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NEI, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The All of Us Research Program was supported by grants from the NIH and other sources. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The evidence is clear: Alcohol can cause cancer.

Earlier this month, US surgeon general Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory, calling for alcoholic beverages to carry a warning label about cancer risk. The advisory flagged alcohol as the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity, and highlighted people’s limited awareness about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk.

But, when it comes to cancer risk, are all types of alcohol created equal?

For many years, red wine seemed to be an outlier, with studies indicating that, in moderation, it might even be good for you. Red wine has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties — most notably, it contains the antioxidant resveratrol. Starting in the 1990s, research began to hint that the compound might protect against heart disease, aging, and cancer, though much of this work was done in animals or test tubes.

The idea that red wine carries health benefits, however, has been called into question more recently. A recent meta-analysis, for instance, suggests that many previous studies touting the health benefits of more moderate drinking were likely biased, potentially leading to “misleading positive health associations.” And one recent study found that alcohol consumption, largely red wine and beer, at all levels was linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Although wine’s health halo is dwindling, there might be an exception: Cancer risk.

Overall, research shows that even light to moderate drinking increases the risk for at least seven types of cancer, but when focusing on red wine, in particular, that risk calculus can look different.

“It’s very complicated and nuanced,” said Timothy Rebbeck, PhD, professor of cancer prevention, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. “And ‘complicated and nuanced’ doesn’t work very well in public health messages.”

The Knowns About Alcohol and Cancer Risk

Some things about the relationship between alcohol and cancer risk are crystal clear. “There’s no question that alcohol is a group 1 carcinogen,” Rebbeck said. “Alcohol can cause cancer.”

Groups including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and American Cancer Society agree that alcohol use is an established cause of seven types of cancer: Those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus (squamous cell carcinoma), liver (hepatocellular carcinoma), breast, and colon/rectum. Heavy drinking — at least 8 standard drinks a week for women and 15 for men — and binge drinking — 4 or more drinks in 2 hours for women and 5 or more for men — only amplify that risk. (A “standard” drink has 14 g of alcohol, which translates to a 5-oz glass of wine.)

“We’re most concerned about high-risk drinking — more than 2 drinks a day — and/or binge drinking,” said Noelle LoConte, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, who authored a 2018 statement on alcohol and cancer risk from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Compared with not drinking, heavy drinking is linked with a roughly fivefold increase in the risk for oral cavity, pharyngeal, and esophageal cancers, and a 61% increase in the risk for breast cancer, according to LoConte and colleagues.

Things get murkier when it comes to moderate drinking — defined as up to 1 standard drink per day for women and 2 per day for men. There is evidence, LoConte said, that moderate drinking is associated with increased cancer risks, though the magnitude is generally much less than heavier drinking.

Cancer type also matters. One analysis found that the risk for breast cancer increased with even light to moderate alcohol consumption. Compared with no drinking, light to moderate drinking has also been linked to increased risks for oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and esophageal cancers.

As for whether the type of alcoholic beverage matters, LoConte said, there’s no clear physiological reason that wine would be less risky than beer or liquor. Research indicates that ethanol is the problematic ingredient: Once ingested, it’s metabolized into acetaldehyde, a DNA-damaging substance that’s considered a probable human carcinogen. Ethanol can also alter circulating levels of estrogens and androgens, LoConte said, which is thought to drive its association with breast cancer risk.

“It likely doesn’t matter how you choose to get your ethanol,” she said. “It’s a question of volume.”

Hints That Wine Is an Outlier

Still, some studies suggest that how people ingest ethanol could make a difference.

A study published in August in JAMA Network Open is a case in point. The study found that, among older adults, light to heavy drinkers had an increased risk of dying from cancer, compared with occasional drinkers (though the increased risk among light to moderate drinkers occurred only among people who also had chronic health conditions, such as diabetes or high blood pressure, or were of lower socioeconomic status).

Wine drinkers fared differently. Most notably, drinkers who “preferred” wine — consuming over 80% of total ethanol from wine — or those who drank only with meals showed a small reduction in their risk for cancer mortality and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 for both). The small protective association was somewhat stronger among people who reported both patterns (HR, 0.88), especially if they were of lower socioeconomic status (HR, 0.79).

The findings are in line with other research suggesting that wine drinkers may be outliers when it comes to cancer risk. A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 observational studies, for instance, found no association between wine consumption and any cancer type, with the caveat that there was «substantial» heterogeneity among the studies.

This heterogeneity caveat speaks to the inherent limitations of observational research, said Tim Stockwell, PhD, of the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada.

“Individual studies of alcohol and cancer risk do find differences by type of drink, or patterns of drinking,” Stockwell said. “But it’s so hard to unpack the confounding that goes along with the type of person who’s a wine drinker or a beer drinker or a spirit drinker. The beverage of choice seems to come with a lot of baggage.”

Compared with people who favor beer or liquor, he noted, wine aficionados are typically higher-income, exercise more often, smoke less, and have different diets, for example. The “best” studies, Rebbeck said, try to adjust for those differences, but it’s challenging.

The authors of the 2023 meta-analysis noted that “many components in wine could have anticarcinogenic effects” that theoretically could counter the ill effects of ethanol. Besides resveratrol, which is mainly found in red wine, the list includes anthocyanins, quercetin, and tannins. However, the authors also acknowledged that they couldn’t account for whether other lifestyle habits might explain why wine drinkers, overall, showed no increased cancer risks and sometimes lower risks.

Still, groups such as the IARC and ASCO hold that there is no known “safe” level, or type, of alcohol when it comes to cancer.

In the latest Canadian guidelines on alcohol use, the scientific panel calculated that people who have 6 drinks a week throughout adulthood (whatever the source of the alcohol) could shave 11 weeks from their life expectancy, on average, said Stockwell, who was on the guideline panel. Compare that with heavy drinking, where 4 drinks a day could rob the average person of 2 or 3 years. “If you’re drinking a lot, you could get huge benefits from cutting down,” Stockwell explained. “If you’re a moderate drinker, the benefits would obviously be less.”

Stockwell said that choices around drinking and breast cancer risk, specifically, can be “tough.” Unlike many of the other alcohol-associated cancers, he noted, breast cancer is common — so even small relative risk increases may be concerning. Based on a 2020 meta-analysis of 22 cohort studies, the risk for breast cancer rises by about 10%, on average, for every 10 g of alcohol a woman drinks per day. This study also found no evidence that wine is any different from other types of alcohol.

In real life, the calculus around wine consumption and cancer risk will probably vary widely from person to person, Rebbeck said. One woman with a family history of breast cancer might decide that having wine with dinner isn’t worth it. Another with the same family history might see that glass of wine as a stress reliever and opt to focus on other ways to reduce her breast cancer risk — by exercising and maintaining a healthy weight, for example.

“The bottom line is, in human studies, the data on light to moderate drinking and cancer are limited and messy, and you can’t draw firm conclusions from them,” Rebbeck said. “It probably raises risk in some people, but we don’t know who those people are. And the risk increases are relatively small.”

A Conversation Few Are Having

Even with many studies highlighting the connection between alcohol consumption and cancer risk, most people remain unaware about this risk.

A 2023 study by the National Cancer Institute found that only a minority of US adults knew that drinking alcohol is linked to increased cancer risk, and they were much less likely to say that was true of wine: Only 20% did, vs 31% who said that liquor can boost cancer risk. Meanwhile, 10% believed that wine helps prevent cancer. Other studies show that even among cancer survivors and patients undergoing active cancer treatment, many drink — often heavily.

“What we know right now is, physicians almost never talk about this,” LoConte said.

That could be due to time constraints, according to Rebbeck, or clinicians’ perceptions that the subject is too complicated and/or their own confusion about the data. There could also be some “cognitive dissonance” at play, LoConte noted, because many doctors drink alcohol.

It’s critical, she said, that conversations about drinking habits become “normalized,” and that should include informing patients that alcohol use is associated with certain cancers. Again, LoConte said, it’s high-risk drinking that’s most concerning and where reducing intake could have the biggest impact on cancer risk and other health outcomes.

“From a cancer prevention standpoint, it’s probably best not to drink,” she said. “But people don’t make choices based solely on cancer risk. We don’t want to come out with recommendations saying no one should drink. I don’t think the data support that, and people would buck against that advice.”

Rebbeck made a similar point. Even if there’s uncertainty about the risks for a daily glass of wine, he said, people can use that information to make decisions. “Everybody’s preferences and choices are going to be different,” Rebbeck said. “And that’s all we can really do.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Given that more than 100 million US adults have obesity, including 22 million with severe obesity, physicians regularly see patients with the condition in their practices.

Fortunately, doctors have more tools than ever to help their patients. But the question remains: Which method is the safest and most effective? Is it diet and lifestyle changes, one of the recently approved anti-obesity medications (AOMs), bariatric surgery, or a combination approach?

There are no head-to-head trials comparing these three approaches, said Vanita Rahman, MD, clinic director of the Barnard Medical Center, Washington, DC, at the International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine, sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Instead, doctors must evaluate the merits and drawbacks of each intervention and decide with their patients which treatment is best for them, she told Medscape Medical News. When she sees patients, Rahman shares the pertinent research with them, so they are able to make an informed choice.

 

Looking at the Options

In her presentation at the conference, Rahman summarized the guidelines issued by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society for Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Comprehensive Clinical Practice Guidelines For Medical Care of Patients with Obesity, including lifestyle changes, AOMs, and bariatric surgery (Table 1).

As shown, the current clinical guidelines offer recommendations that consider such factors as the patient’s BMI and presence of one or more comorbidities. Generally, they begin with lifestyle changes for people with overweight, the possibility of an AOM for those with obesity, and bariatric surgery as an option for those with severe obesity-related complications.

“In obesity, we traditionally thought the process was ‘either-or’ — either lifestyle or surgery or medication — and somehow lifestyle is better,” Sheethal Reddy, PhD, a psychologist at the Bariatric Center at Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta, told Medscape Medical News.

Now physicians often use a combination of methods, but lifestyle is foundational to all of them, she said.

“If you don’t make lifestyle changes, none of the approaches will ultimately be effective,” said Reddy, who also is an assistant professor in the Division of General and GI Surgery at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Lifestyle changes don’t just involve diet and nutrition but include physical exercise.

“Being sedentary affects everything — sleep quality, appetite regulation, and metabolism. Without sufficient exercise, the body isn’t functioning well enough to have a healthy metabolism,” Reddy said.

 

How Durable Are the Interventions?

Although bariatric surgery has demonstrated effectiveness in helping patients lose weight, many of them regain some or most of it, Rahman said.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found weight regain in 49% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery patients, with the highest prevalence after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Another study of approximately 45,000 patients who underwent bariatric surgery found differences not only in the percentage of total weight loss among Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric band procedures but also in how much of that weight stayed off between 1 and 5 years following the procedure (Table 2).

 

Weight regain also is a risk with AOMs, if they’re discontinued.

The STEP 1 trial tested the effectiveness of semaglutide — a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist — as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention for weight loss in patients with obesity or with overweight and at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. Mean weight loss with semaglutide was 17.3% but that figure dropped 11.6 percentage points after treatment was discontinued.

Other studies also have found that patients regain weight after GLP-1 discontinuation.

Tirzepatide, a GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combination, has shown efficacy with weight reduction, but patients experienced some weight regain upon discontinuation. In one study, patients experienced a mean weight loss of 20.9% after 36 weeks of tirzepatide. In the study’s subsequent 52-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period, patients who stopped taking the medication experienced a weight regain of 14%, whereas those who remained on the medication lost an additional 5.5% of weight.

GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP medications do not address the factors that contribute to overweight and obesity, Rahman said. “They simply suppress the appetite; therefore, weight gain occurs after stopping them.”

Patients may stop taking anti-obesity drugs for a variety of reasons, including side effects. Rahman noted that the common side effects include nausea, vomiting, and constipation, whereas rare side effects include gastroparesis, gallbladder and biliary disease, thyroid cancer, and suicidal thoughts. GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP medications also carry a risk for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, she said.

Moreover, health insurance does not always cover these medications, which likely affects patient access to the drugs and compliance rates.

“Given the side effects and frequent lack of insurance coverage, significant questions remain about long-term safety and feasibility of these agents,” Rahman said.

 

What About Nutritional Approaches?

The lifestyle interventions in the semaglutide and tirzepatide studies included 500 kcal/d deficit diets, which is difficult for people to maintain, noted Rahman, who is the author of the book Simply Plant Based: Fabulous Food for a Healthy Life.

Additionally, bariatric surgery has been associated with long-term micronutrient deficiencies, including deficiencies in vitamins A, D, E, K, B1, and B12, as well as folate, iron, zinc, copper, selenium, and calcium, she said.

The best approach to food from a patient compliance standpoint and to avoid nutrient deficiencies is a whole-food, plant-based diet, Rahman said. She advocates this nutritional approach, along with physical activity, for patients regardless of whether they’ve selected lifestyle intervention alone or combined with an AOM or bariatric surgery to address obesity.

Rahman cited a 5-year heart disease study comparing an intensive lifestyle program involving a vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management training, smoking cessation, and group psychosocial support to treatment as usual. Patients in the lifestyle group lost 10.9 kg at 1 year and sustained weight loss of 5.8 kg at 5 years, whereas weight in the control group remained relatively unchanged from baseline.

She also pointed to the findings of a study of patients with obesity or with overweight and at least one comorbidity that compared standard care with a low-fat, whole-food, plant-based diet with vitamin B12 supplementation. At 6 months, mean BMI reduction was greater in the intervention group than the standard care group (−4.4 vs −0.4).

In her practice, Rahman has seen the benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet for patients with obesity.

If people are committed to this type of dietary approach and are given the tools and resources to do it effectively, “their thinking changes, their taste buds change, and they grow to enjoy this new way of eating,” she said. “They see results, and it’s a lifestyle that can be sustained long-term.”

 

Addressing Drivers of Weight Gain

Patients also need help addressing the various factors that may contribute to overweight and obesity, including overconsumption of ultra-processed foods, substandard nutritional quality of restaurant foods, increasing portion sizes, distraction during eating, emotional eating, late-night eating, and cultural/traditional values surrounding food, Rahman noted.

Supatra Tovar, PsyD, RD, a clinical psychologist with a practice in Pasadena, California, agreed that identifying the reasons for weight gain is critical for treatment.

“If you’re not addressing underlying issues, such as a person’s relationship with food, behaviors around food, the tendency to mindlessly eat or emotionally eat or eat to seek comfort, the person’s weight problems won’t ultimately be fully solved by any of the three approaches — dieting, medications, or bariatric surgery,” she said.

Some of her patients “engage in extreme dieting and deprivation, and many who use medications or have had bariatric surgery hardly eat and often develop nutritional deficiencies,” said Tovar, author of the book Deprogram Diet Culture: Rethink Your Relationship with Food, Heal Your Mind, and Live a Diet-Free Life.

The key to healthy and sustained weight loss is to “become attuned to the body’s signals, learn how to honor hunger, stop eating when satisfied, and eat more healthful foods, such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins — especially plant-based proteins — and the body gives signals that this is what it wants,” she said.

Tovar doesn’t give her clients a specific diet or set of portions.

“I teach them to listen to their bodies,” she said. “They’ve lost significant amounts of weight and continued to keep it off because they’ve done this kind of work.”

 

When Lifestyle Changes Aren’t Enough

For many patients, lifestyle interventions are insufficient to address the degree of overweight and obesity and common comorbidities, said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, associate director and professor, Department of Nutrition Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Of course, nutritional approaches are very important, not only for weight but also for general health-related reasons,” said Garvey, lead author of the 2016 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists obesity guidelines. “We’ve seen that the Mediterranean and some plant-based diets can prevent progression from prediabetes to diabetes and improve other parameters that reflect metabolic health.”

However, it’s “not common that patients can follow these diets, lose weight, and keep it off,” Garvey cautioned. Up to 50% of weight that’s lost through lifestyle changes is typically regained by 1-year follow-up, with almost all remaining lost weight subsequently regained in the majority of individuals because the person “has to fight against pathophysiological process that drive weight regain,” he noted.

Weight-loss medications can address these pathophysiologic processes by “addressing interactions of satiety hormones with feeding centers in the brain, suppressing the appetite, and making it easier for patients to adhere to a reduced-calorie diet.”

Garvey views the weight-loss medications in the same light as drugs for diabetes and hypertension, in that people need to keep taking them to sustain the benefit.

There’s still a role for bariatric surgery because not everyone can tolerate the AOMs or achieve sufficient weight loss.

“Patients with very high BMI who have trouble ambulating might benefit from a combination of bariatric surgery and medication,” Garvey said.

While some side effects are associated with AOMs, being an “alarmist” about them can be detrimental to patients, he warned.

“We’re treating obesity, which is a serious disease, and we need to employ all the tools that we can,” Garvey said.

Rahman and Tovar are authors of books about weight loss. Reddy reported no relevant financial relationships. Garvey is a consultant on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, Zealand, Allurion, Carmot/Roche, Terns Pharmaceuticals, Neurocrine, Keros Therapeutics, and Regeneron. He is the site principal investigator for multi-centered clinical trials sponsored by his university and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. He serves as a consultant on the advisory board for the nonprofit Milken Foundation and is a member of the Data Monitoring Committee for phase 3 clinical trials conducted by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

 

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

Given that more than 100 million US adults have obesity, including 22 million with severe obesity, physicians regularly see patients with the condition in their practices.

Fortunately, doctors have more tools than ever to help their patients. But the question remains: Which method is the safest and most effective? Is it diet and lifestyle changes, one of the recently approved anti-obesity medications (AOMs), bariatric surgery, or a combination approach?

There are no head-to-head trials comparing these three approaches, said Vanita Rahman, MD, clinic director of the Barnard Medical Center, Washington, DC, at the International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine, sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Instead, doctors must evaluate the merits and drawbacks of each intervention and decide with their patients which treatment is best for them, she told Medscape Medical News. When she sees patients, Rahman shares the pertinent research with them, so they are able to make an informed choice.

 

Looking at the Options

In her presentation at the conference, Rahman summarized the guidelines issued by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society for Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Comprehensive Clinical Practice Guidelines For Medical Care of Patients with Obesity, including lifestyle changes, AOMs, and bariatric surgery (Table 1).

As shown, the current clinical guidelines offer recommendations that consider such factors as the patient’s BMI and presence of one or more comorbidities. Generally, they begin with lifestyle changes for people with overweight, the possibility of an AOM for those with obesity, and bariatric surgery as an option for those with severe obesity-related complications.

“In obesity, we traditionally thought the process was ‘either-or’ — either lifestyle or surgery or medication — and somehow lifestyle is better,” Sheethal Reddy, PhD, a psychologist at the Bariatric Center at Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta, told Medscape Medical News.

Now physicians often use a combination of methods, but lifestyle is foundational to all of them, she said.

“If you don’t make lifestyle changes, none of the approaches will ultimately be effective,” said Reddy, who also is an assistant professor in the Division of General and GI Surgery at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Lifestyle changes don’t just involve diet and nutrition but include physical exercise.

“Being sedentary affects everything — sleep quality, appetite regulation, and metabolism. Without sufficient exercise, the body isn’t functioning well enough to have a healthy metabolism,” Reddy said.

 

How Durable Are the Interventions?

Although bariatric surgery has demonstrated effectiveness in helping patients lose weight, many of them regain some or most of it, Rahman said.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found weight regain in 49% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery patients, with the highest prevalence after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Another study of approximately 45,000 patients who underwent bariatric surgery found differences not only in the percentage of total weight loss among Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric band procedures but also in how much of that weight stayed off between 1 and 5 years following the procedure (Table 2).

 

Weight regain also is a risk with AOMs, if they’re discontinued.

The STEP 1 trial tested the effectiveness of semaglutide — a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist — as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention for weight loss in patients with obesity or with overweight and at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. Mean weight loss with semaglutide was 17.3% but that figure dropped 11.6 percentage points after treatment was discontinued.

Other studies also have found that patients regain weight after GLP-1 discontinuation.

Tirzepatide, a GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combination, has shown efficacy with weight reduction, but patients experienced some weight regain upon discontinuation. In one study, patients experienced a mean weight loss of 20.9% after 36 weeks of tirzepatide. In the study’s subsequent 52-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period, patients who stopped taking the medication experienced a weight regain of 14%, whereas those who remained on the medication lost an additional 5.5% of weight.

GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP medications do not address the factors that contribute to overweight and obesity, Rahman said. “They simply suppress the appetite; therefore, weight gain occurs after stopping them.”

Patients may stop taking anti-obesity drugs for a variety of reasons, including side effects. Rahman noted that the common side effects include nausea, vomiting, and constipation, whereas rare side effects include gastroparesis, gallbladder and biliary disease, thyroid cancer, and suicidal thoughts. GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP medications also carry a risk for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, she said.

Moreover, health insurance does not always cover these medications, which likely affects patient access to the drugs and compliance rates.

“Given the side effects and frequent lack of insurance coverage, significant questions remain about long-term safety and feasibility of these agents,” Rahman said.

 

What About Nutritional Approaches?

The lifestyle interventions in the semaglutide and tirzepatide studies included 500 kcal/d deficit diets, which is difficult for people to maintain, noted Rahman, who is the author of the book Simply Plant Based: Fabulous Food for a Healthy Life.

Additionally, bariatric surgery has been associated with long-term micronutrient deficiencies, including deficiencies in vitamins A, D, E, K, B1, and B12, as well as folate, iron, zinc, copper, selenium, and calcium, she said.

The best approach to food from a patient compliance standpoint and to avoid nutrient deficiencies is a whole-food, plant-based diet, Rahman said. She advocates this nutritional approach, along with physical activity, for patients regardless of whether they’ve selected lifestyle intervention alone or combined with an AOM or bariatric surgery to address obesity.

Rahman cited a 5-year heart disease study comparing an intensive lifestyle program involving a vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management training, smoking cessation, and group psychosocial support to treatment as usual. Patients in the lifestyle group lost 10.9 kg at 1 year and sustained weight loss of 5.8 kg at 5 years, whereas weight in the control group remained relatively unchanged from baseline.

She also pointed to the findings of a study of patients with obesity or with overweight and at least one comorbidity that compared standard care with a low-fat, whole-food, plant-based diet with vitamin B12 supplementation. At 6 months, mean BMI reduction was greater in the intervention group than the standard care group (−4.4 vs −0.4).

In her practice, Rahman has seen the benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet for patients with obesity.

If people are committed to this type of dietary approach and are given the tools and resources to do it effectively, “their thinking changes, their taste buds change, and they grow to enjoy this new way of eating,” she said. “They see results, and it’s a lifestyle that can be sustained long-term.”

 

Addressing Drivers of Weight Gain

Patients also need help addressing the various factors that may contribute to overweight and obesity, including overconsumption of ultra-processed foods, substandard nutritional quality of restaurant foods, increasing portion sizes, distraction during eating, emotional eating, late-night eating, and cultural/traditional values surrounding food, Rahman noted.

Supatra Tovar, PsyD, RD, a clinical psychologist with a practice in Pasadena, California, agreed that identifying the reasons for weight gain is critical for treatment.

“If you’re not addressing underlying issues, such as a person’s relationship with food, behaviors around food, the tendency to mindlessly eat or emotionally eat or eat to seek comfort, the person’s weight problems won’t ultimately be fully solved by any of the three approaches — dieting, medications, or bariatric surgery,” she said.

Some of her patients “engage in extreme dieting and deprivation, and many who use medications or have had bariatric surgery hardly eat and often develop nutritional deficiencies,” said Tovar, author of the book Deprogram Diet Culture: Rethink Your Relationship with Food, Heal Your Mind, and Live a Diet-Free Life.

The key to healthy and sustained weight loss is to “become attuned to the body’s signals, learn how to honor hunger, stop eating when satisfied, and eat more healthful foods, such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins — especially plant-based proteins — and the body gives signals that this is what it wants,” she said.

Tovar doesn’t give her clients a specific diet or set of portions.

“I teach them to listen to their bodies,” she said. “They’ve lost significant amounts of weight and continued to keep it off because they’ve done this kind of work.”

 

When Lifestyle Changes Aren’t Enough

For many patients, lifestyle interventions are insufficient to address the degree of overweight and obesity and common comorbidities, said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, associate director and professor, Department of Nutrition Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Of course, nutritional approaches are very important, not only for weight but also for general health-related reasons,” said Garvey, lead author of the 2016 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists obesity guidelines. “We’ve seen that the Mediterranean and some plant-based diets can prevent progression from prediabetes to diabetes and improve other parameters that reflect metabolic health.”

However, it’s “not common that patients can follow these diets, lose weight, and keep it off,” Garvey cautioned. Up to 50% of weight that’s lost through lifestyle changes is typically regained by 1-year follow-up, with almost all remaining lost weight subsequently regained in the majority of individuals because the person “has to fight against pathophysiological process that drive weight regain,” he noted.

Weight-loss medications can address these pathophysiologic processes by “addressing interactions of satiety hormones with feeding centers in the brain, suppressing the appetite, and making it easier for patients to adhere to a reduced-calorie diet.”

Garvey views the weight-loss medications in the same light as drugs for diabetes and hypertension, in that people need to keep taking them to sustain the benefit.

There’s still a role for bariatric surgery because not everyone can tolerate the AOMs or achieve sufficient weight loss.

“Patients with very high BMI who have trouble ambulating might benefit from a combination of bariatric surgery and medication,” Garvey said.

While some side effects are associated with AOMs, being an “alarmist” about them can be detrimental to patients, he warned.

“We’re treating obesity, which is a serious disease, and we need to employ all the tools that we can,” Garvey said.

Rahman and Tovar are authors of books about weight loss. Reddy reported no relevant financial relationships. Garvey is a consultant on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, Zealand, Allurion, Carmot/Roche, Terns Pharmaceuticals, Neurocrine, Keros Therapeutics, and Regeneron. He is the site principal investigator for multi-centered clinical trials sponsored by his university and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. He serves as a consultant on the advisory board for the nonprofit Milken Foundation and is a member of the Data Monitoring Committee for phase 3 clinical trials conducted by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

 

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

Given that more than 100 million US adults have obesity, including 22 million with severe obesity, physicians regularly see patients with the condition in their practices.

Fortunately, doctors have more tools than ever to help their patients. But the question remains: Which method is the safest and most effective? Is it diet and lifestyle changes, one of the recently approved anti-obesity medications (AOMs), bariatric surgery, or a combination approach?

There are no head-to-head trials comparing these three approaches, said Vanita Rahman, MD, clinic director of the Barnard Medical Center, Washington, DC, at the International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine, sponsored by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Instead, doctors must evaluate the merits and drawbacks of each intervention and decide with their patients which treatment is best for them, she told Medscape Medical News. When she sees patients, Rahman shares the pertinent research with them, so they are able to make an informed choice.

 

Looking at the Options

In her presentation at the conference, Rahman summarized the guidelines issued by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/The Obesity Society for Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology Comprehensive Clinical Practice Guidelines For Medical Care of Patients with Obesity, including lifestyle changes, AOMs, and bariatric surgery (Table 1).

As shown, the current clinical guidelines offer recommendations that consider such factors as the patient’s BMI and presence of one or more comorbidities. Generally, they begin with lifestyle changes for people with overweight, the possibility of an AOM for those with obesity, and bariatric surgery as an option for those with severe obesity-related complications.

“In obesity, we traditionally thought the process was ‘either-or’ — either lifestyle or surgery or medication — and somehow lifestyle is better,” Sheethal Reddy, PhD, a psychologist at the Bariatric Center at Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta, told Medscape Medical News.

Now physicians often use a combination of methods, but lifestyle is foundational to all of them, she said.

“If you don’t make lifestyle changes, none of the approaches will ultimately be effective,” said Reddy, who also is an assistant professor in the Division of General and GI Surgery at Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta.

Lifestyle changes don’t just involve diet and nutrition but include physical exercise.

“Being sedentary affects everything — sleep quality, appetite regulation, and metabolism. Without sufficient exercise, the body isn’t functioning well enough to have a healthy metabolism,” Reddy said.

 

How Durable Are the Interventions?

Although bariatric surgery has demonstrated effectiveness in helping patients lose weight, many of them regain some or most of it, Rahman said.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found weight regain in 49% of patients who underwent bariatric surgery patients, with the highest prevalence after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Another study of approximately 45,000 patients who underwent bariatric surgery found differences not only in the percentage of total weight loss among Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and adjustable gastric band procedures but also in how much of that weight stayed off between 1 and 5 years following the procedure (Table 2).

 

Weight regain also is a risk with AOMs, if they’re discontinued.

The STEP 1 trial tested the effectiveness of semaglutide — a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist — as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention for weight loss in patients with obesity or with overweight and at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. Mean weight loss with semaglutide was 17.3% but that figure dropped 11.6 percentage points after treatment was discontinued.

Other studies also have found that patients regain weight after GLP-1 discontinuation.

Tirzepatide, a GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) combination, has shown efficacy with weight reduction, but patients experienced some weight regain upon discontinuation. In one study, patients experienced a mean weight loss of 20.9% after 36 weeks of tirzepatide. In the study’s subsequent 52-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period, patients who stopped taking the medication experienced a weight regain of 14%, whereas those who remained on the medication lost an additional 5.5% of weight.

GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP medications do not address the factors that contribute to overweight and obesity, Rahman said. “They simply suppress the appetite; therefore, weight gain occurs after stopping them.”

Patients may stop taking anti-obesity drugs for a variety of reasons, including side effects. Rahman noted that the common side effects include nausea, vomiting, and constipation, whereas rare side effects include gastroparesis, gallbladder and biliary disease, thyroid cancer, and suicidal thoughts. GLP-1 and GLP-1/GIP medications also carry a risk for non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, she said.

Moreover, health insurance does not always cover these medications, which likely affects patient access to the drugs and compliance rates.

“Given the side effects and frequent lack of insurance coverage, significant questions remain about long-term safety and feasibility of these agents,” Rahman said.

 

What About Nutritional Approaches?

The lifestyle interventions in the semaglutide and tirzepatide studies included 500 kcal/d deficit diets, which is difficult for people to maintain, noted Rahman, who is the author of the book Simply Plant Based: Fabulous Food for a Healthy Life.

Additionally, bariatric surgery has been associated with long-term micronutrient deficiencies, including deficiencies in vitamins A, D, E, K, B1, and B12, as well as folate, iron, zinc, copper, selenium, and calcium, she said.

The best approach to food from a patient compliance standpoint and to avoid nutrient deficiencies is a whole-food, plant-based diet, Rahman said. She advocates this nutritional approach, along with physical activity, for patients regardless of whether they’ve selected lifestyle intervention alone or combined with an AOM or bariatric surgery to address obesity.

Rahman cited a 5-year heart disease study comparing an intensive lifestyle program involving a vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise, stress management training, smoking cessation, and group psychosocial support to treatment as usual. Patients in the lifestyle group lost 10.9 kg at 1 year and sustained weight loss of 5.8 kg at 5 years, whereas weight in the control group remained relatively unchanged from baseline.

She also pointed to the findings of a study of patients with obesity or with overweight and at least one comorbidity that compared standard care with a low-fat, whole-food, plant-based diet with vitamin B12 supplementation. At 6 months, mean BMI reduction was greater in the intervention group than the standard care group (−4.4 vs −0.4).

In her practice, Rahman has seen the benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet for patients with obesity.

If people are committed to this type of dietary approach and are given the tools and resources to do it effectively, “their thinking changes, their taste buds change, and they grow to enjoy this new way of eating,” she said. “They see results, and it’s a lifestyle that can be sustained long-term.”

 

Addressing Drivers of Weight Gain

Patients also need help addressing the various factors that may contribute to overweight and obesity, including overconsumption of ultra-processed foods, substandard nutritional quality of restaurant foods, increasing portion sizes, distraction during eating, emotional eating, late-night eating, and cultural/traditional values surrounding food, Rahman noted.

Supatra Tovar, PsyD, RD, a clinical psychologist with a practice in Pasadena, California, agreed that identifying the reasons for weight gain is critical for treatment.

“If you’re not addressing underlying issues, such as a person’s relationship with food, behaviors around food, the tendency to mindlessly eat or emotionally eat or eat to seek comfort, the person’s weight problems won’t ultimately be fully solved by any of the three approaches — dieting, medications, or bariatric surgery,” she said.

Some of her patients “engage in extreme dieting and deprivation, and many who use medications or have had bariatric surgery hardly eat and often develop nutritional deficiencies,” said Tovar, author of the book Deprogram Diet Culture: Rethink Your Relationship with Food, Heal Your Mind, and Live a Diet-Free Life.

The key to healthy and sustained weight loss is to “become attuned to the body’s signals, learn how to honor hunger, stop eating when satisfied, and eat more healthful foods, such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins — especially plant-based proteins — and the body gives signals that this is what it wants,” she said.

Tovar doesn’t give her clients a specific diet or set of portions.

“I teach them to listen to their bodies,” she said. “They’ve lost significant amounts of weight and continued to keep it off because they’ve done this kind of work.”

 

When Lifestyle Changes Aren’t Enough

For many patients, lifestyle interventions are insufficient to address the degree of overweight and obesity and common comorbidities, said W. Timothy Garvey, MD, associate director and professor, Department of Nutrition Sciences, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham.

“Of course, nutritional approaches are very important, not only for weight but also for general health-related reasons,” said Garvey, lead author of the 2016 American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists obesity guidelines. “We’ve seen that the Mediterranean and some plant-based diets can prevent progression from prediabetes to diabetes and improve other parameters that reflect metabolic health.”

However, it’s “not common that patients can follow these diets, lose weight, and keep it off,” Garvey cautioned. Up to 50% of weight that’s lost through lifestyle changes is typically regained by 1-year follow-up, with almost all remaining lost weight subsequently regained in the majority of individuals because the person “has to fight against pathophysiological process that drive weight regain,” he noted.

Weight-loss medications can address these pathophysiologic processes by “addressing interactions of satiety hormones with feeding centers in the brain, suppressing the appetite, and making it easier for patients to adhere to a reduced-calorie diet.”

Garvey views the weight-loss medications in the same light as drugs for diabetes and hypertension, in that people need to keep taking them to sustain the benefit.

There’s still a role for bariatric surgery because not everyone can tolerate the AOMs or achieve sufficient weight loss.

“Patients with very high BMI who have trouble ambulating might benefit from a combination of bariatric surgery and medication,” Garvey said.

While some side effects are associated with AOMs, being an “alarmist” about them can be detrimental to patients, he warned.

“We’re treating obesity, which is a serious disease, and we need to employ all the tools that we can,” Garvey said.

Rahman and Tovar are authors of books about weight loss. Reddy reported no relevant financial relationships. Garvey is a consultant on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Fractyl Health, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inogen, Zealand, Allurion, Carmot/Roche, Terns Pharmaceuticals, Neurocrine, Keros Therapeutics, and Regeneron. He is the site principal investigator for multi-centered clinical trials sponsored by his university and funded by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Epitomee, Neurovalens, and Pfizer. He serves as a consultant on the advisory board for the nonprofit Milken Foundation and is a member of the Data Monitoring Committee for phase 3 clinical trials conducted by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of antidiabetes medications declined in the last year before death, with notable shifts from metformin and sulfonylureas toward insulin therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

Current recommendations emphasize a more liberal approach to glycemic control in people with a high burden of comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, but little is known about the changes and discontinuation patterns of diabetes medications among older adults near the end of life.

Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to assess the prescribing trends of antidiabetes medications in the final year of life among 975,407 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with T2D (mean age at death, 80.9 years; 54.3% women) who died between January 2015 and December 2019.

All medication classes available during the study period were considered, including short-acting and long-acting insulins, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and other medications.

Analysis included temporal trends in prescribing antidiabetes medications, stratified by frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index, with scores ≥ 0.30 indicating higher frailty.

Antidiabetes medication fills were assessed within 1 year before death, examining changes across three time periods: 12 to 8 months, 8 to 4 months, and 4 to 0 months before death.

TAKEAWAY:

The proportion of older patients receiving antidiabetes medications increased slightly from 71.4% in 2015 to 72.9% in 2019, with metformin showing the largest increase from 40.7% to 46.5% (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.12) and sulfonylureas showing the largest decrease from 37.0% to 31.8% (SMD, 0.11).

The use of newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular benefits, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, remained less common but showed increasing trends over time.

The use of any antidiabetes medication decreased from 66.1% in the 9 to 12 months before death to 60.8% in the last 4 months of life (P < .01), primarily due to the reduced use of metformin and sulfonylureas.

The use of both short-acting and long-acting insulin agents increased toward the end of life (from 28.0% to 32.9% and from 41.2% to 43.9%, respectively; both P < .001) , particularly among frailer individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings underscore important implications for diabetes management in patients nearing the end of life. With ~70% of patients with T2D using at least one antidiabetes medication, there is a need to consider further de-escalation or deprescribing in this vulnerable population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Kutz, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked details on the reasons for changes in medication patterns, making it unclear whether these changes were due to clinical guidelines or to reduce adverse events. Moreover, the study could not capture transitions or substitutions between medications, information on the dosage data, and causes of death.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Some authors reported receiving personal fees or research grants from the National Institutes of Health and other institutions and a few pharmaceutical companies. One author reported acting as a principal investigator and receiving a research grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to the work.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of antidiabetes medications declined in the last year before death, with notable shifts from metformin and sulfonylureas toward insulin therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

Current recommendations emphasize a more liberal approach to glycemic control in people with a high burden of comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, but little is known about the changes and discontinuation patterns of diabetes medications among older adults near the end of life.

Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to assess the prescribing trends of antidiabetes medications in the final year of life among 975,407 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with T2D (mean age at death, 80.9 years; 54.3% women) who died between January 2015 and December 2019.

All medication classes available during the study period were considered, including short-acting and long-acting insulins, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and other medications.

Analysis included temporal trends in prescribing antidiabetes medications, stratified by frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index, with scores ≥ 0.30 indicating higher frailty.

Antidiabetes medication fills were assessed within 1 year before death, examining changes across three time periods: 12 to 8 months, 8 to 4 months, and 4 to 0 months before death.

TAKEAWAY:

The proportion of older patients receiving antidiabetes medications increased slightly from 71.4% in 2015 to 72.9% in 2019, with metformin showing the largest increase from 40.7% to 46.5% (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.12) and sulfonylureas showing the largest decrease from 37.0% to 31.8% (SMD, 0.11).

The use of newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular benefits, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, remained less common but showed increasing trends over time.

The use of any antidiabetes medication decreased from 66.1% in the 9 to 12 months before death to 60.8% in the last 4 months of life (P < .01), primarily due to the reduced use of metformin and sulfonylureas.

The use of both short-acting and long-acting insulin agents increased toward the end of life (from 28.0% to 32.9% and from 41.2% to 43.9%, respectively; both P < .001) , particularly among frailer individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings underscore important implications for diabetes management in patients nearing the end of life. With ~70% of patients with T2D using at least one antidiabetes medication, there is a need to consider further de-escalation or deprescribing in this vulnerable population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Kutz, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked details on the reasons for changes in medication patterns, making it unclear whether these changes were due to clinical guidelines or to reduce adverse events. Moreover, the study could not capture transitions or substitutions between medications, information on the dosage data, and causes of death.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Some authors reported receiving personal fees or research grants from the National Institutes of Health and other institutions and a few pharmaceutical companies. One author reported acting as a principal investigator and receiving a research grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to the work.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the use of antidiabetes medications declined in the last year before death, with notable shifts from metformin and sulfonylureas toward insulin therapy.

METHODOLOGY:

Current recommendations emphasize a more liberal approach to glycemic control in people with a high burden of comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, but little is known about the changes and discontinuation patterns of diabetes medications among older adults near the end of life.

Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to assess the prescribing trends of antidiabetes medications in the final year of life among 975,407 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries with T2D (mean age at death, 80.9 years; 54.3% women) who died between January 2015 and December 2019.

All medication classes available during the study period were considered, including short-acting and long-acting insulins, metformin, sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, and other medications.

Analysis included temporal trends in prescribing antidiabetes medications, stratified by frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index, with scores ≥ 0.30 indicating higher frailty.

Antidiabetes medication fills were assessed within 1 year before death, examining changes across three time periods: 12 to 8 months, 8 to 4 months, and 4 to 0 months before death.

TAKEAWAY:

The proportion of older patients receiving antidiabetes medications increased slightly from 71.4% in 2015 to 72.9% in 2019, with metformin showing the largest increase from 40.7% to 46.5% (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.12) and sulfonylureas showing the largest decrease from 37.0% to 31.8% (SMD, 0.11).

The use of newer diabetes medications with cardiovascular benefits, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, remained less common but showed increasing trends over time.

The use of any antidiabetes medication decreased from 66.1% in the 9 to 12 months before death to 60.8% in the last 4 months of life (P < .01), primarily due to the reduced use of metformin and sulfonylureas.

The use of both short-acting and long-acting insulin agents increased toward the end of life (from 28.0% to 32.9% and from 41.2% to 43.9%, respectively; both P < .001) , particularly among frailer individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings underscore important implications for diabetes management in patients nearing the end of life. With ~70% of patients with T2D using at least one antidiabetes medication, there is a need to consider further de-escalation or deprescribing in this vulnerable population,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Kutz, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked details on the reasons for changes in medication patterns, making it unclear whether these changes were due to clinical guidelines or to reduce adverse events. Moreover, the study could not capture transitions or substitutions between medications, information on the dosage data, and causes of death.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Some authors reported receiving personal fees or research grants from the National Institutes of Health and other institutions and a few pharmaceutical companies. One author reported acting as a principal investigator and receiving a research grant from Boehringer-Ingelheim, unrelated to the work.

 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence–ECG risk estimation model designed to predict incident hypertension (AIRE-HTN) identifies cases and stratifies the risk for adverse outcomes in addition to traditional markers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a development and external validation prognostic cohort study in a secondary care setting to identify individuals at risk for incident hypertension.
• They developed AIRE-HTN, which was trained on a derivation cohort from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, involving 1,163,401 ECGs from 189,539 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 52.1% women; 64.5% White individuals).
• External validation was conducted on 65,610 ECGs from a UK-based volunteer cohort, drawn from an equal number of patients (mean age, 65.4 years; 51.5% women; 96.3% White individuals).
• Incident hypertension was evaluated in 19,423 individuals without hypertension from the medical center cohort and in 35,806 individuals without hypertension from the UK cohort.

TAKEAWAY:

• AIRE-HTN predicted incident hypertension with a C-index of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.69-0.71) in both the cohorts. Those in the quartile with the highest AIRE-HTN scores had a fourfold increased risk for incident hypertension (P < .001).
• The model’s predictive accuracy was maintained in individuals without left ventricular hypertrophy and those with normal ECGs and baseline blood pressure, indicating its robustness.
• The model was significantly additive to traditional clinical markers, with a continuous net reclassification index of 0.44 for the medical center cohort and 0.32 for the UK cohort.
• AIRE-HTN was an independent predictor of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio per 1-SD increase in score [HR], 2.24), heart failure (HR, 2.60), myocardial infarction (HR, 3.13), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.23), and chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.89) in outpatients from the medical center cohort (all P < .001), with largely consistent findings in the UK cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“Results of exploratory and phenotypic analyses suggest the biological plausibility of these findings. Enhanced predictability could influence surveillance programs and primordial prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arunashis Sau, PhD, and Joseph Barker, MRes, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, England. It was published online on January 2, 2025, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

In one cohort, hypertension was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, which may lack granularity and not align with contemporary guidelines. The findings were not validated against ambulatory monitoring standards. The performance of the model in different populations and clinical settings remains to be explored.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors acknowledged receiving support from Imperial’s British Heart Foundation Centre for Excellence Award and disclosed receiving support from the British Heart Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, the EJP RD Research Mobility Fellowship, the Medical Research Council, and the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, advisory fees, or laboratory work fees outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence–ECG risk estimation model designed to predict incident hypertension (AIRE-HTN) identifies cases and stratifies the risk for adverse outcomes in addition to traditional markers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a development and external validation prognostic cohort study in a secondary care setting to identify individuals at risk for incident hypertension.
• They developed AIRE-HTN, which was trained on a derivation cohort from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, involving 1,163,401 ECGs from 189,539 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 52.1% women; 64.5% White individuals).
• External validation was conducted on 65,610 ECGs from a UK-based volunteer cohort, drawn from an equal number of patients (mean age, 65.4 years; 51.5% women; 96.3% White individuals).
• Incident hypertension was evaluated in 19,423 individuals without hypertension from the medical center cohort and in 35,806 individuals without hypertension from the UK cohort.

TAKEAWAY:

• AIRE-HTN predicted incident hypertension with a C-index of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.69-0.71) in both the cohorts. Those in the quartile with the highest AIRE-HTN scores had a fourfold increased risk for incident hypertension (P < .001).
• The model’s predictive accuracy was maintained in individuals without left ventricular hypertrophy and those with normal ECGs and baseline blood pressure, indicating its robustness.
• The model was significantly additive to traditional clinical markers, with a continuous net reclassification index of 0.44 for the medical center cohort and 0.32 for the UK cohort.
• AIRE-HTN was an independent predictor of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio per 1-SD increase in score [HR], 2.24), heart failure (HR, 2.60), myocardial infarction (HR, 3.13), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.23), and chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.89) in outpatients from the medical center cohort (all P < .001), with largely consistent findings in the UK cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“Results of exploratory and phenotypic analyses suggest the biological plausibility of these findings. Enhanced predictability could influence surveillance programs and primordial prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arunashis Sau, PhD, and Joseph Barker, MRes, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, England. It was published online on January 2, 2025, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

In one cohort, hypertension was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, which may lack granularity and not align with contemporary guidelines. The findings were not validated against ambulatory monitoring standards. The performance of the model in different populations and clinical settings remains to be explored.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors acknowledged receiving support from Imperial’s British Heart Foundation Centre for Excellence Award and disclosed receiving support from the British Heart Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, the EJP RD Research Mobility Fellowship, the Medical Research Council, and the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, advisory fees, or laboratory work fees outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An artificial intelligence–ECG risk estimation model designed to predict incident hypertension (AIRE-HTN) identifies cases and stratifies the risk for adverse outcomes in addition to traditional markers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a development and external validation prognostic cohort study in a secondary care setting to identify individuals at risk for incident hypertension.
• They developed AIRE-HTN, which was trained on a derivation cohort from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, involving 1,163,401 ECGs from 189,539 patients (mean age, 57.7 years; 52.1% women; 64.5% White individuals).
• External validation was conducted on 65,610 ECGs from a UK-based volunteer cohort, drawn from an equal number of patients (mean age, 65.4 years; 51.5% women; 96.3% White individuals).
• Incident hypertension was evaluated in 19,423 individuals without hypertension from the medical center cohort and in 35,806 individuals without hypertension from the UK cohort.

TAKEAWAY:

• AIRE-HTN predicted incident hypertension with a C-index of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.69-0.71) in both the cohorts. Those in the quartile with the highest AIRE-HTN scores had a fourfold increased risk for incident hypertension (P < .001).
• The model’s predictive accuracy was maintained in individuals without left ventricular hypertrophy and those with normal ECGs and baseline blood pressure, indicating its robustness.
• The model was significantly additive to traditional clinical markers, with a continuous net reclassification index of 0.44 for the medical center cohort and 0.32 for the UK cohort.
• AIRE-HTN was an independent predictor of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio per 1-SD increase in score [HR], 2.24), heart failure (HR, 2.60), myocardial infarction (HR, 3.13), ischemic stroke (HR, 1.23), and chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.89) in outpatients from the medical center cohort (all P < .001), with largely consistent findings in the UK cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

“Results of exploratory and phenotypic analyses suggest the biological plausibility of these findings. Enhanced predictability could influence surveillance programs and primordial prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Arunashis Sau, PhD, and Joseph Barker, MRes, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, England. It was published online on January 2, 2025, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

In one cohort, hypertension was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, which may lack granularity and not align with contemporary guidelines. The findings were not validated against ambulatory monitoring standards. The performance of the model in different populations and clinical settings remains to be explored.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors acknowledged receiving support from Imperial’s British Heart Foundation Centre for Excellence Award and disclosed receiving support from the British Heart Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre, the EJP RD Research Mobility Fellowship, the Medical Research Council, and the Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, advisory fees, or laboratory work fees outside the submitted work.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.