Megan Brooks

More than 1 in 10 individuals between 5 and 24 years of age live with at least one diagnosable mental disorder, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.

The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.

“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

State of Emergency

Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency. 

Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years. 

In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively. 

The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%). 

Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%). 

Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes. 
 

Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith

“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial. 

In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.” 

The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote. 

Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested. 

On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added. 

“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).” 

The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1 in 10 individuals between 5 and 24 years of age live with at least one diagnosable mental disorder, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.

The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.

“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

State of Emergency

Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency. 

Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years. 

In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively. 

The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%). 

Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%). 

Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes. 
 

Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith

“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial. 

In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.” 

The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote. 

Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested. 

On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added. 

“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).” 

The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1 in 10 individuals between 5 and 24 years of age live with at least one diagnosable mental disorder, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.

The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.

“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

State of Emergency

Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency. 

Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years. 

In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively. 

The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%). 

Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%). 

Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes. 
 

Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith

“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial. 

In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.” 

The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote. 

Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested. 

On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added. 

“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).” 

The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared NM-101 (Terran Biosciences), a cloud-based software platform to analyze neuromelanin-sensitive MRI scans, which could aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 

Research has suggested that neuromelanin is a potential biomarker for neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

A recent meta-analysis of 12 neuromelanin MRI studies with 403 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 298 control participants found that neuromelanin MRI had “favorable” diagnostic performance in discriminating patients with Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls.

Until now, there were no FDA-approved devices capable of providing clinicians with analysis of neuromelanin MRI due to a lack of automation and standardization. NM-101 contains algorithms that enable fully automated analysis and the cross-scanner harmonization of neuromelanin MRI scans, the company explains in a news release.

NM-101 is designed to “seamlessly” integrate into existing workflows at hospitals and imaging centers, the company says. 

The platform allows clinicians to send neuromelanin MRI images to Terran directly through the hospital picture archiving and communication system and receive results in less than 1 hour. 

When interpreted by a neuroradiologist, NM-101 could provide information that may be helpful in determining neuromelanin association as an adjunct to diagnosis.

“We believe this technology could become very important in the clinical workflow of patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders,” Terran Biosciences Founder and CEO Sam Clark, MD, PhD, said in the release. 

Neuromelanin MRI has the potential to become “part of the standard of care for the workup of all patients suspected of Parkinson’s and related diseases,” David Sulzer, PhD, professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and co-author of multiple studies using neuromelanin MRI, commented in the news release.

“It’s great to see neuromelanin MRI become more accessible in clinical settings. We hope this opens the door for the adoption of neuromelanin MRI into the clinical workflow for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders,” added Guillermo Horga, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Terran Biosciences has an exclusive license to the CNS biomarker software platform and related patents co-owned by Columbia University and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. Dr. Horga will receive a portion of the royalties paid to Columbia University for sales of the product.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared NM-101 (Terran Biosciences), a cloud-based software platform to analyze neuromelanin-sensitive MRI scans, which could aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 

Research has suggested that neuromelanin is a potential biomarker for neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

A recent meta-analysis of 12 neuromelanin MRI studies with 403 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 298 control participants found that neuromelanin MRI had “favorable” diagnostic performance in discriminating patients with Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls.

Until now, there were no FDA-approved devices capable of providing clinicians with analysis of neuromelanin MRI due to a lack of automation and standardization. NM-101 contains algorithms that enable fully automated analysis and the cross-scanner harmonization of neuromelanin MRI scans, the company explains in a news release.

NM-101 is designed to “seamlessly” integrate into existing workflows at hospitals and imaging centers, the company says. 

The platform allows clinicians to send neuromelanin MRI images to Terran directly through the hospital picture archiving and communication system and receive results in less than 1 hour. 

When interpreted by a neuroradiologist, NM-101 could provide information that may be helpful in determining neuromelanin association as an adjunct to diagnosis.

“We believe this technology could become very important in the clinical workflow of patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders,” Terran Biosciences Founder and CEO Sam Clark, MD, PhD, said in the release. 

Neuromelanin MRI has the potential to become “part of the standard of care for the workup of all patients suspected of Parkinson’s and related diseases,” David Sulzer, PhD, professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and co-author of multiple studies using neuromelanin MRI, commented in the news release.

“It’s great to see neuromelanin MRI become more accessible in clinical settings. We hope this opens the door for the adoption of neuromelanin MRI into the clinical workflow for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders,” added Guillermo Horga, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Terran Biosciences has an exclusive license to the CNS biomarker software platform and related patents co-owned by Columbia University and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. Dr. Horga will receive a portion of the royalties paid to Columbia University for sales of the product.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared NM-101 (Terran Biosciences), a cloud-based software platform to analyze neuromelanin-sensitive MRI scans, which could aid in the diagnosis of neurodegenerative diseases. 

Research has suggested that neuromelanin is a potential biomarker for neurologic disorders such as Parkinson’s disease.

A recent meta-analysis of 12 neuromelanin MRI studies with 403 patients with Parkinson’s disease and 298 control participants found that neuromelanin MRI had “favorable” diagnostic performance in discriminating patients with Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls.

Until now, there were no FDA-approved devices capable of providing clinicians with analysis of neuromelanin MRI due to a lack of automation and standardization. NM-101 contains algorithms that enable fully automated analysis and the cross-scanner harmonization of neuromelanin MRI scans, the company explains in a news release.

NM-101 is designed to “seamlessly” integrate into existing workflows at hospitals and imaging centers, the company says. 

The platform allows clinicians to send neuromelanin MRI images to Terran directly through the hospital picture archiving and communication system and receive results in less than 1 hour. 

When interpreted by a neuroradiologist, NM-101 could provide information that may be helpful in determining neuromelanin association as an adjunct to diagnosis.

“We believe this technology could become very important in the clinical workflow of patients with neurological and psychiatric disorders,” Terran Biosciences Founder and CEO Sam Clark, MD, PhD, said in the release. 

Neuromelanin MRI has the potential to become “part of the standard of care for the workup of all patients suspected of Parkinson’s and related diseases,” David Sulzer, PhD, professor of neurobiology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and co-author of multiple studies using neuromelanin MRI, commented in the news release.

“It’s great to see neuromelanin MRI become more accessible in clinical settings. We hope this opens the door for the adoption of neuromelanin MRI into the clinical workflow for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders,” added Guillermo Horga, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Terran Biosciences has an exclusive license to the CNS biomarker software platform and related patents co-owned by Columbia University and Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene. Dr. Horga will receive a portion of the royalties paid to Columbia University for sales of the product.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.

In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.

The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization. 

“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.

The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

A Gateway to Lasting BP Control

GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m²; mean, 37 kg/m²) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.

Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group. 

After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m² for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m² for those on medication alone (P < .001).

Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.

After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target. 

Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone. 

The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling. 

The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years. 

Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.

“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote. 

“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added. 
 

Important Data, Lingering Questions 

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”

Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.

“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”

As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome. 

The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.

In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.

The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization. 

“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.

The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

A Gateway to Lasting BP Control

GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m²; mean, 37 kg/m²) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.

Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group. 

After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m² for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m² for those on medication alone (P < .001).

Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.

After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target. 

Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone. 

The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling. 

The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years. 

Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.

“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote. 

“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added. 
 

Important Data, Lingering Questions 

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”

Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.

“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”

As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome. 

The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.

In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.

The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization. 

“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.

The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 
 

A Gateway to Lasting BP Control

GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m²; mean, 37 kg/m²) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.

Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group. 

After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m² for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m² for those on medication alone (P < .001).

Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.

After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target. 

Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone. 

The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).

In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling. 

The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years. 

Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.

“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote. 

“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added. 
 

Important Data, Lingering Questions 

The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”

Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.

“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”

As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome. 

The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first updated guidelines for specialized epilepsy centers in a decade reflect a shift toward addressing patients’ overall well-being, including recommendations for genetic testing and counseling, mental health screening, and greater attention to special-needs populations. 

The guidelines — the first from the National Association of Epilepsy Centers (NAEC) in a decade — describe the comprehensive services and resources specialized epilepsy centers should provide to improve quality of care for people living with epilepsy.

“In addition to advances in medicine, there has been a shift toward addressing overall well-being beyond seizure management,” Fred A. Lado, MD, PhD, NAEC president and guideline panel cochair, said in a news release. “This includes care for comorbid conditions like anxiety and depression, enhanced communication between the patient and care team, and addressing health disparities in the epilepsy community.

The guidance was developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts, which is the first time that the NAEC has gone beyond the field of neurology to seek input from other medical specialists and allied health personnel, the panel noted. 

“Expanded guidelines are also sorely needed to help centers and hospitals obtain the resources to provide this level of comprehensive care,” said Dr. Lado, regional director of epilepsy and professor of neurology at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. 

An executive summary of the guidelines was published online in Neurology. 
 

A Multidisciplinary Approach

Epilepsy is one of the most common chronic neurologic conditions worldwide, affecting an estimated 3.4 million people in the United States alone. Recurring seizures can be debilitating and, in some cases, life-threatening. 

To update epilepsy care guidelines, an expert panel of 41 stakeholders with diverse expertise evaluated the latest evidence and reached consensus on 52 recommendations spanning a range of services that make up high-quality epilepsy care. 

“This is exhibited in a greater emphasis on multidisciplinary care conferences, screening for comorbidities of epilepsy, and providing access to other specialty services in addition to the core epilepsy center components of outpatient care, diagnostic procedures, and epilepsy surgery,” they wrote. 

For the first time, the guidelines advise specialized epilepsy centers to offer genetic testing and counseling, provide more education and communication for patients, give greater attention to special-needs populations, employ a care coordinator to organize and facilitate multidisciplinary care, provide mental health screening, and address health disparities and inequities.

“All recommendations quickly reached consensus despite there being such a diverse panel of stakeholders, which emphasizes that the recommendations reflect the important elements of healthcare services that should be in place for an epilepsy center to provide the highest quality of care,” said Susan Arnold, MD, guideline panel co-chair and a pediatric epileptologist at Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

“But epilepsy centers will need the resources to provide this comprehensive level of care. We hope the guidelines will help increase health insurer and institutional support and recognition of these recommendations,” Dr. Arnold added. 

The guidelines were funded by NAEC. Dr. Lado has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Arnold holds stock in Pfizer. A complete list of disclosures for the guideline panel is available with the original article. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study added heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) to the growing list of cardiovascular conditions linked to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which already includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

But what exactly is CHIP, and what is its potential value in CVD risk and management?

CHIP is an age-related condition marked by clonal expansion of blood stem cells with leukemia-associated mutations in individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancy. CHIP is estimated to affect about 10% of people aged 70 years and older.

First described as a risk factor for hematologic, particularly myeloid, malignant neoplasms, CHIP has recently emerged as a novel CVD risk factor.

CHIP gives rise to proinflammatory immune cells, which can exacerbate ASCVD and may induce or accelerate HF.

“The association between CHIP and HFpEF may be particularly relevant, given that the prevalence of HFpEF is rising due to the progressive aging of the population,” said José J. Fuster, PhD, coordinator for the program on novel mechanisms of atherosclerosis, Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid.

Yet previous studies examining CHIP and HF have either focused on overall HF without distinguishing HF subtypes of preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, or have examined its prognostic significance in the setting of established HF, rather than the development of future HF.

To help fill the gap, Boston-based researchers recently evaluated associations of CHIP and the two most common gene-specific CHIP subtypes (TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP) with incident HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In two racially diverse cohorts with a total of 8090 adults, TET2 CHIP was independently associated with > twofold higher risk of incident HFpEF. By contrast, there were no significant associations of CHIP with incident HFrEF.

“Our study’s fundings suggest that previously described associations between CHIP and future development of heart failure may be driven primarily by HFpEF,” said Michael Honigberg, MD, with the Cardiovascular Research Center and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In addition, the “clearest signal for an association with HF was observed for TET2 CHIP, the second-most common subtype of CHIP in the population. This finding aligns with a recently published study that reported relative enrichment of TET2 CHIP in a small human HFpEF cohort,” Dr. Honigberg said.

Dr. Fuster said the connection between CHIP and aging “enhances the potential clinical relevance of this study, as CHIP is frequent in elderly individuals and, therefore, may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF in a high proportion of patients.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings need to be validated in other studies.

“In addition, there is a growing recognition that the effects of CHIP are heterogeneous, as mutations in different genes have different effects on cardiovascular and act through different mechanisms. Additional studies will be needed to dissect gene-specific effects in HFpEF. It will also be important to explore whether CHIP influences the clinical progression of the disease,” Dr. Fuster said.

Targeted Treatment?

Dr. Honigberg said the findings may aid in the development of new targeted-treatment strategies for at least the subset of patients with HFpEF.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, the mechanism linking TET2 CHIP to CVD appears to be heightened inflammation, he explained.

For example, in a substudy of the CANTOS trial, patients with atherosclerosis and TET2 CHIP who received canakinumab appeared to derive “outsized benefit” in preventing CV events compared with the overall trial population, Dr. Honigberg said.

“HFpEF is a particularly challenging disease with limited effective therapies. Our findings support the premise that targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent and/or treat HFpEF driven by TET2 CHIP. Of course, this hypothesis will require testing in prospective randomized trials,” Dr. Honigberg said.

“The field of CHIP has developed rapidly, and it is an exciting area of research,” Dr. Fuster added. “However, I personally believe that much work lies ahead before it is ready for prime time in the clinical setting.

“Although the link between CHIP and CVD is solid, we still lack evidence-based interventions to mitigate the elevated CVD risk associated with these mutations. In the absence of effective interventions, the added value of screening for CHIP as a risk factor may be limited,” Dr. Fuster noted.

“For instance, in the setting of HFpEF, we don’t really know whether CHIP mutation carriers may respond favorably to contemporary HF medications or may require new personalized approaches. Additional research and, eventually, clinical trials, are needed,” he added. 

Dr. Honigberg has disclosed relationships with Genentech, Miga Health, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Comanche Biopharma. Dr. Fuster has no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study added heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) to the growing list of cardiovascular conditions linked to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which already includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

But what exactly is CHIP, and what is its potential value in CVD risk and management?

CHIP is an age-related condition marked by clonal expansion of blood stem cells with leukemia-associated mutations in individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancy. CHIP is estimated to affect about 10% of people aged 70 years and older.

First described as a risk factor for hematologic, particularly myeloid, malignant neoplasms, CHIP has recently emerged as a novel CVD risk factor.

CHIP gives rise to proinflammatory immune cells, which can exacerbate ASCVD and may induce or accelerate HF.

“The association between CHIP and HFpEF may be particularly relevant, given that the prevalence of HFpEF is rising due to the progressive aging of the population,” said José J. Fuster, PhD, coordinator for the program on novel mechanisms of atherosclerosis, Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid.

Yet previous studies examining CHIP and HF have either focused on overall HF without distinguishing HF subtypes of preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, or have examined its prognostic significance in the setting of established HF, rather than the development of future HF.

To help fill the gap, Boston-based researchers recently evaluated associations of CHIP and the two most common gene-specific CHIP subtypes (TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP) with incident HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In two racially diverse cohorts with a total of 8090 adults, TET2 CHIP was independently associated with > twofold higher risk of incident HFpEF. By contrast, there were no significant associations of CHIP with incident HFrEF.

“Our study’s fundings suggest that previously described associations between CHIP and future development of heart failure may be driven primarily by HFpEF,” said Michael Honigberg, MD, with the Cardiovascular Research Center and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In addition, the “clearest signal for an association with HF was observed for TET2 CHIP, the second-most common subtype of CHIP in the population. This finding aligns with a recently published study that reported relative enrichment of TET2 CHIP in a small human HFpEF cohort,” Dr. Honigberg said.

Dr. Fuster said the connection between CHIP and aging “enhances the potential clinical relevance of this study, as CHIP is frequent in elderly individuals and, therefore, may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF in a high proportion of patients.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings need to be validated in other studies.

“In addition, there is a growing recognition that the effects of CHIP are heterogeneous, as mutations in different genes have different effects on cardiovascular and act through different mechanisms. Additional studies will be needed to dissect gene-specific effects in HFpEF. It will also be important to explore whether CHIP influences the clinical progression of the disease,” Dr. Fuster said.

Targeted Treatment?

Dr. Honigberg said the findings may aid in the development of new targeted-treatment strategies for at least the subset of patients with HFpEF.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, the mechanism linking TET2 CHIP to CVD appears to be heightened inflammation, he explained.

For example, in a substudy of the CANTOS trial, patients with atherosclerosis and TET2 CHIP who received canakinumab appeared to derive “outsized benefit” in preventing CV events compared with the overall trial population, Dr. Honigberg said.

“HFpEF is a particularly challenging disease with limited effective therapies. Our findings support the premise that targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent and/or treat HFpEF driven by TET2 CHIP. Of course, this hypothesis will require testing in prospective randomized trials,” Dr. Honigberg said.

“The field of CHIP has developed rapidly, and it is an exciting area of research,” Dr. Fuster added. “However, I personally believe that much work lies ahead before it is ready for prime time in the clinical setting.

“Although the link between CHIP and CVD is solid, we still lack evidence-based interventions to mitigate the elevated CVD risk associated with these mutations. In the absence of effective interventions, the added value of screening for CHIP as a risk factor may be limited,” Dr. Fuster noted.

“For instance, in the setting of HFpEF, we don’t really know whether CHIP mutation carriers may respond favorably to contemporary HF medications or may require new personalized approaches. Additional research and, eventually, clinical trials, are needed,” he added. 

Dr. Honigberg has disclosed relationships with Genentech, Miga Health, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Comanche Biopharma. Dr. Fuster has no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study added heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) to the growing list of cardiovascular conditions linked to clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), which already includes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

But what exactly is CHIP, and what is its potential value in CVD risk and management?

CHIP is an age-related condition marked by clonal expansion of blood stem cells with leukemia-associated mutations in individuals without evidence of hematologic malignancy. CHIP is estimated to affect about 10% of people aged 70 years and older.

First described as a risk factor for hematologic, particularly myeloid, malignant neoplasms, CHIP has recently emerged as a novel CVD risk factor.

CHIP gives rise to proinflammatory immune cells, which can exacerbate ASCVD and may induce or accelerate HF.

“The association between CHIP and HFpEF may be particularly relevant, given that the prevalence of HFpEF is rising due to the progressive aging of the population,” said José J. Fuster, PhD, coordinator for the program on novel mechanisms of atherosclerosis, Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research, Madrid.

Yet previous studies examining CHIP and HF have either focused on overall HF without distinguishing HF subtypes of preserved vs reduced ejection fraction, or have examined its prognostic significance in the setting of established HF, rather than the development of future HF.

To help fill the gap, Boston-based researchers recently evaluated associations of CHIP and the two most common gene-specific CHIP subtypes (TET2 and DNMT3A CHIP) with incident HFpEF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

In two racially diverse cohorts with a total of 8090 adults, TET2 CHIP was independently associated with > twofold higher risk of incident HFpEF. By contrast, there were no significant associations of CHIP with incident HFrEF.

“Our study’s fundings suggest that previously described associations between CHIP and future development of heart failure may be driven primarily by HFpEF,” said Michael Honigberg, MD, with the Cardiovascular Research Center and Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

In addition, the “clearest signal for an association with HF was observed for TET2 CHIP, the second-most common subtype of CHIP in the population. This finding aligns with a recently published study that reported relative enrichment of TET2 CHIP in a small human HFpEF cohort,” Dr. Honigberg said.

Dr. Fuster said the connection between CHIP and aging “enhances the potential clinical relevance of this study, as CHIP is frequent in elderly individuals and, therefore, may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF in a high proportion of patients.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings need to be validated in other studies.

“In addition, there is a growing recognition that the effects of CHIP are heterogeneous, as mutations in different genes have different effects on cardiovascular and act through different mechanisms. Additional studies will be needed to dissect gene-specific effects in HFpEF. It will also be important to explore whether CHIP influences the clinical progression of the disease,” Dr. Fuster said.

Targeted Treatment?

Dr. Honigberg said the findings may aid in the development of new targeted-treatment strategies for at least the subset of patients with HFpEF.

Based on multiple lines of evidence, the mechanism linking TET2 CHIP to CVD appears to be heightened inflammation, he explained.

For example, in a substudy of the CANTOS trial, patients with atherosclerosis and TET2 CHIP who received canakinumab appeared to derive “outsized benefit” in preventing CV events compared with the overall trial population, Dr. Honigberg said.

“HFpEF is a particularly challenging disease with limited effective therapies. Our findings support the premise that targeted anti-inflammatory therapies may prevent and/or treat HFpEF driven by TET2 CHIP. Of course, this hypothesis will require testing in prospective randomized trials,” Dr. Honigberg said.

“The field of CHIP has developed rapidly, and it is an exciting area of research,” Dr. Fuster added. “However, I personally believe that much work lies ahead before it is ready for prime time in the clinical setting.

“Although the link between CHIP and CVD is solid, we still lack evidence-based interventions to mitigate the elevated CVD risk associated with these mutations. In the absence of effective interventions, the added value of screening for CHIP as a risk factor may be limited,” Dr. Fuster noted.

“For instance, in the setting of HFpEF, we don’t really know whether CHIP mutation carriers may respond favorably to contemporary HF medications or may require new personalized approaches. Additional research and, eventually, clinical trials, are needed,” he added. 

Dr. Honigberg has disclosed relationships with Genentech, Miga Health, CRISPR Therapeutics, and Comanche Biopharma. Dr. Fuster has no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg. It is the first and only medicine approved to treat these patients.

The FDA previously approved the drug for EoE in persons aged 12 years or older and weighing ≥ 40 kg in May 2022, as reported by this news organization.

EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by type 2 inflammation that damages the esophagus and causes difficulty swallowing and eating. 

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts to inhibit part of the inflammatory pathway. 
 

EoE KIDS Trial

The FDA approval of dupilumab for younger children is based on results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EoE KIDS trial, which had two parts. 

Part A was a 16-week double-blind treatment period that evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in a tiered weight-based dosing schema.

At 16 weeks, 66% of children who received higher dose dupilumab at tiered dosing regimens based on weight achieved histologic disease remission (six or fewer eosinophils/high power field), which was the primary endpoint, compared with only 3% of children who received placebo.

In addition, a greater decrease in the proportion of days with one or more signs of EoE according to the Pediatric EoE Sign/Symptom Questionnaire caregiver version (PESQ-C) was observed in children treated with dupilumab at 16 weeks compared placebo.

Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible children from Part A in the dupilumab group continued to receive their dose level and those in the placebo group in Part A switched to active treatment. 

Histologic remission was sustained at week 52 in 53% of children treated with dupilumab in Parts A and B. Histologic remission was also achieved at week 52 in 53% of children who switched to dupilumab from placebo in Part B.

The safety profile of dupilumab observed through 16 weeks in these children was generally in line to that seen through 24 weeks in persons aged 12 years or older with EoE. 

The most common adverse events (≥ 2%) more frequently observed with dupilumab than with placebo were injection site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, arthralgia, and herpes viral infections. In EoE KIDS Part B, one case of helminth infection was reported in the dupilumab arm.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg. It is the first and only medicine approved to treat these patients.

The FDA previously approved the drug for EoE in persons aged 12 years or older and weighing ≥ 40 kg in May 2022, as reported by this news organization.

EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by type 2 inflammation that damages the esophagus and causes difficulty swallowing and eating. 

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts to inhibit part of the inflammatory pathway. 
 

EoE KIDS Trial

The FDA approval of dupilumab for younger children is based on results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EoE KIDS trial, which had two parts. 

Part A was a 16-week double-blind treatment period that evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in a tiered weight-based dosing schema.

At 16 weeks, 66% of children who received higher dose dupilumab at tiered dosing regimens based on weight achieved histologic disease remission (six or fewer eosinophils/high power field), which was the primary endpoint, compared with only 3% of children who received placebo.

In addition, a greater decrease in the proportion of days with one or more signs of EoE according to the Pediatric EoE Sign/Symptom Questionnaire caregiver version (PESQ-C) was observed in children treated with dupilumab at 16 weeks compared placebo.

Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible children from Part A in the dupilumab group continued to receive their dose level and those in the placebo group in Part A switched to active treatment. 

Histologic remission was sustained at week 52 in 53% of children treated with dupilumab in Parts A and B. Histologic remission was also achieved at week 52 in 53% of children who switched to dupilumab from placebo in Part B.

The safety profile of dupilumab observed through 16 weeks in these children was generally in line to that seen through 24 weeks in persons aged 12 years or older with EoE. 

The most common adverse events (≥ 2%) more frequently observed with dupilumab than with placebo were injection site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, arthralgia, and herpes viral infections. In EoE KIDS Part B, one case of helminth infection was reported in the dupilumab arm.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved dupilumab (Dupixent, Regeneron/Sanofi) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children aged 1-11 years and weighing ≥ 15 kg. It is the first and only medicine approved to treat these patients.

The FDA previously approved the drug for EoE in persons aged 12 years or older and weighing ≥ 40 kg in May 2022, as reported by this news organization.

EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder driven by type 2 inflammation that damages the esophagus and causes difficulty swallowing and eating. 

Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that acts to inhibit part of the inflammatory pathway. 
 

EoE KIDS Trial

The FDA approval of dupilumab for younger children is based on results from the phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EoE KIDS trial, which had two parts. 

Part A was a 16-week double-blind treatment period that evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in a tiered weight-based dosing schema.

At 16 weeks, 66% of children who received higher dose dupilumab at tiered dosing regimens based on weight achieved histologic disease remission (six or fewer eosinophils/high power field), which was the primary endpoint, compared with only 3% of children who received placebo.

In addition, a greater decrease in the proportion of days with one or more signs of EoE according to the Pediatric EoE Sign/Symptom Questionnaire caregiver version (PESQ-C) was observed in children treated with dupilumab at 16 weeks compared placebo.

Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible children from Part A in the dupilumab group continued to receive their dose level and those in the placebo group in Part A switched to active treatment. 

Histologic remission was sustained at week 52 in 53% of children treated with dupilumab in Parts A and B. Histologic remission was also achieved at week 52 in 53% of children who switched to dupilumab from placebo in Part B.

The safety profile of dupilumab observed through 16 weeks in these children was generally in line to that seen through 24 weeks in persons aged 12 years or older with EoE. 

The most common adverse events (≥ 2%) more frequently observed with dupilumab than with placebo were injection site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, arthralgia, and herpes viral infections. In EoE KIDS Part B, one case of helminth infection was reported in the dupilumab arm.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

TOPLINE:

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are much more abundant than lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] particles and carry the greatest overall risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), on a per-particle basis, Lp(a) is associated with about six times the atherogenic risk for LDL, new observational research suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To compare the atherogenicity of Lp(a) relative to LDL on a per-particle basis, researchers used a genetic analysis because Lp(a) and LDL both contain one apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.
• In a genome-wide association study of 502,413 UK Biobank participants, they identified genetic variants uniquely affecting plasma levels of either Lp(a) or LDL particles.
• For these two genetic clusters, they related the change in apoB to the respective change in CHD risk, which allowed them to directly compare the atherogenicity of LDL and Lp(a), particle to particle.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds ratio for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB.
• Additional supporting evidence was provided by using polygenic scores to rank participants according to the difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs LDL-apoB, which revealed a greater risk for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.58) than the LDL cluster (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).
• Based on the data, the researchers estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is roughly sixfold greater (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI, 5.1-8.8) than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are two clinical implications. First, to completely characterize atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, it is imperative to measure Lp(a) in all adult patients at least once. Second, these studies provide a rationale that targeting Lp(a) with potent and specific drugs may lead to clinically meaningful benefit,” wrote the authors of an accompanying commentary on the study.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Elias Björnson, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and an editorial by Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Vera Bittner, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The UK Biobank consists primarily of a Caucasian population, and confirmatory studies in more diverse samples are needed. The working range for the Lp(a) assay used in the study did not cover the full range of Lp(a) values seen in the population. Variations in Lp(a)-apoB and LDL-apoB were estimated from genetic analysis and not measured specifically in biochemical assays.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Some authors received honoraria from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are much more abundant than lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] particles and carry the greatest overall risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), on a per-particle basis, Lp(a) is associated with about six times the atherogenic risk for LDL, new observational research suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To compare the atherogenicity of Lp(a) relative to LDL on a per-particle basis, researchers used a genetic analysis because Lp(a) and LDL both contain one apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.
• In a genome-wide association study of 502,413 UK Biobank participants, they identified genetic variants uniquely affecting plasma levels of either Lp(a) or LDL particles.
• For these two genetic clusters, they related the change in apoB to the respective change in CHD risk, which allowed them to directly compare the atherogenicity of LDL and Lp(a), particle to particle.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds ratio for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB.
• Additional supporting evidence was provided by using polygenic scores to rank participants according to the difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs LDL-apoB, which revealed a greater risk for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.58) than the LDL cluster (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).
• Based on the data, the researchers estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is roughly sixfold greater (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI, 5.1-8.8) than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are two clinical implications. First, to completely characterize atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, it is imperative to measure Lp(a) in all adult patients at least once. Second, these studies provide a rationale that targeting Lp(a) with potent and specific drugs may lead to clinically meaningful benefit,” wrote the authors of an accompanying commentary on the study.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Elias Björnson, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and an editorial by Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Vera Bittner, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The UK Biobank consists primarily of a Caucasian population, and confirmatory studies in more diverse samples are needed. The working range for the Lp(a) assay used in the study did not cover the full range of Lp(a) values seen in the population. Variations in Lp(a)-apoB and LDL-apoB were estimated from genetic analysis and not measured specifically in biochemical assays.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Some authors received honoraria from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are much more abundant than lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] particles and carry the greatest overall risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), on a per-particle basis, Lp(a) is associated with about six times the atherogenic risk for LDL, new observational research suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To compare the atherogenicity of Lp(a) relative to LDL on a per-particle basis, researchers used a genetic analysis because Lp(a) and LDL both contain one apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.
• In a genome-wide association study of 502,413 UK Biobank participants, they identified genetic variants uniquely affecting plasma levels of either Lp(a) or LDL particles.
• For these two genetic clusters, they related the change in apoB to the respective change in CHD risk, which allowed them to directly compare the atherogenicity of LDL and Lp(a), particle to particle.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds ratio for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB.
• Additional supporting evidence was provided by using polygenic scores to rank participants according to the difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs LDL-apoB, which revealed a greater risk for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.58) than the LDL cluster (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).
• Based on the data, the researchers estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is roughly sixfold greater (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI, 5.1-8.8) than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are two clinical implications. First, to completely characterize atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, it is imperative to measure Lp(a) in all adult patients at least once. Second, these studies provide a rationale that targeting Lp(a) with potent and specific drugs may lead to clinically meaningful benefit,” wrote the authors of an accompanying commentary on the study.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Elias Björnson, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and an editorial by Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Vera Bittner, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The UK Biobank consists primarily of a Caucasian population, and confirmatory studies in more diverse samples are needed. The working range for the Lp(a) assay used in the study did not cover the full range of Lp(a) values seen in the population. Variations in Lp(a)-apoB and LDL-apoB were estimated from genetic analysis and not measured specifically in biochemical assays.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Some authors received honoraria from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.