Biologic agents may not be as safe or effective in Hispanic patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as they are in non-Hispanic patients, suggest new data published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To compare risk for hospitalization, surgery, and serious infections, Nghia H. Nguyen, MD, and his team at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the University of California, San Diego, included a multicenter, electronic health record–based cohort of biologic-treated Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with IBD and used 1:4 propensity score matching.

They compared 240 Hispanic patients (53% male; 45% with ulcerative colitis; 73% treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-alpha] antagonist; 20% with prior biologic exposure) with 960 non-Hispanic patients (51% male; 44% with ulcerative colitis; 67% treated with TNF-alpha antagonist; 27% with prior biologic exposure). Patients were new users of biologics (TNF-alpha antagonist, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab).

Compared with non-Hispanic patients, Hispanic patients had a higher risk for all-cause hospitalization (31% vs. 23%) within 1 year of starting a biologic agent.

Hispanic patients also had almost twice the risk for IBD-related surgeries (7% vs. 4.6%, respectively) and trended toward a higher risk for serious infection (8.8% vs. 4.9%, respectively).

The findings are particularly important because incidence and prevalence of IBD in Hispanic adults are increasing rapidly, according to the authors.

“Currently, 1.2% of Hispanic adults in the United States report having IBD, and this number is expected to increase progressively over the next few years with global immigration patterns and changing demographics of the United States,” the authors write.
 

Potential drivers of disparities

Hispanic patients have been underrepresented in clinical trials of biologic agents in IBD, making up fewer than 5% of participants, the authors note. This has resulted in limited data and created challenges in discerning reasons for the disparity.

The authors note the potential role of genetics in the effectiveness of some biologic agents, although that has not been well studied in Hispanic patients.

Additionally, according to this study, Hispanic patients with IBD lived with more negative social determinants of health, particularly related to food insecurity (27%) and lack of adequate social support (83%), compared with non-Hispanic patients (unpublished data).

“In other studies on health care utilization, Hispanic patients were found to have limited access to appropriate specialist care and lack of insurance coverage,” the authors point out.

The authors acknowledge that limitations of their study include the inability to pinpoint the primary reason for hospitalization because data on primary versus secondary discharge diagnoses were not available. Also, they relied on prescription information in electronic health records and could not confirm that medications were dispensed or that patients took them.

They also acknowledged selection bias as a limitation, because the focus was only on patients treated with biologics and not on outcomes for those who may have warranted a biologic treatment but were unable to receive it.

“Future studies are needed to investigate the biological, social, and environmental drivers of these differences,” the authors write.

The authors’ complete financial disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

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

Biologic agents may not be as safe or effective in Hispanic patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as they are in non-Hispanic patients, suggest new data published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To compare risk for hospitalization, surgery, and serious infections, Nghia H. Nguyen, MD, and his team at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the University of California, San Diego, included a multicenter, electronic health record–based cohort of biologic-treated Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with IBD and used 1:4 propensity score matching.

They compared 240 Hispanic patients (53% male; 45% with ulcerative colitis; 73% treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-alpha] antagonist; 20% with prior biologic exposure) with 960 non-Hispanic patients (51% male; 44% with ulcerative colitis; 67% treated with TNF-alpha antagonist; 27% with prior biologic exposure). Patients were new users of biologics (TNF-alpha antagonist, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab).

Compared with non-Hispanic patients, Hispanic patients had a higher risk for all-cause hospitalization (31% vs. 23%) within 1 year of starting a biologic agent.

Hispanic patients also had almost twice the risk for IBD-related surgeries (7% vs. 4.6%, respectively) and trended toward a higher risk for serious infection (8.8% vs. 4.9%, respectively).

The findings are particularly important because incidence and prevalence of IBD in Hispanic adults are increasing rapidly, according to the authors.

“Currently, 1.2% of Hispanic adults in the United States report having IBD, and this number is expected to increase progressively over the next few years with global immigration patterns and changing demographics of the United States,” the authors write.
 

Potential drivers of disparities

Hispanic patients have been underrepresented in clinical trials of biologic agents in IBD, making up fewer than 5% of participants, the authors note. This has resulted in limited data and created challenges in discerning reasons for the disparity.

The authors note the potential role of genetics in the effectiveness of some biologic agents, although that has not been well studied in Hispanic patients.

Additionally, according to this study, Hispanic patients with IBD lived with more negative social determinants of health, particularly related to food insecurity (27%) and lack of adequate social support (83%), compared with non-Hispanic patients (unpublished data).

“In other studies on health care utilization, Hispanic patients were found to have limited access to appropriate specialist care and lack of insurance coverage,” the authors point out.

The authors acknowledge that limitations of their study include the inability to pinpoint the primary reason for hospitalization because data on primary versus secondary discharge diagnoses were not available. Also, they relied on prescription information in electronic health records and could not confirm that medications were dispensed or that patients took them.

They also acknowledged selection bias as a limitation, because the focus was only on patients treated with biologics and not on outcomes for those who may have warranted a biologic treatment but were unable to receive it.

“Future studies are needed to investigate the biological, social, and environmental drivers of these differences,” the authors write.

The authors’ complete financial disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

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

Biologic agents may not be as safe or effective in Hispanic patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as they are in non-Hispanic patients, suggest new data published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

To compare risk for hospitalization, surgery, and serious infections, Nghia H. Nguyen, MD, and his team at the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center at the University of California, San Diego, included a multicenter, electronic health record–based cohort of biologic-treated Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with IBD and used 1:4 propensity score matching.

They compared 240 Hispanic patients (53% male; 45% with ulcerative colitis; 73% treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-alpha] antagonist; 20% with prior biologic exposure) with 960 non-Hispanic patients (51% male; 44% with ulcerative colitis; 67% treated with TNF-alpha antagonist; 27% with prior biologic exposure). Patients were new users of biologics (TNF-alpha antagonist, ustekinumab, or vedolizumab).

Compared with non-Hispanic patients, Hispanic patients had a higher risk for all-cause hospitalization (31% vs. 23%) within 1 year of starting a biologic agent.

Hispanic patients also had almost twice the risk for IBD-related surgeries (7% vs. 4.6%, respectively) and trended toward a higher risk for serious infection (8.8% vs. 4.9%, respectively).

The findings are particularly important because incidence and prevalence of IBD in Hispanic adults are increasing rapidly, according to the authors.

“Currently, 1.2% of Hispanic adults in the United States report having IBD, and this number is expected to increase progressively over the next few years with global immigration patterns and changing demographics of the United States,” the authors write.
 

Potential drivers of disparities

Hispanic patients have been underrepresented in clinical trials of biologic agents in IBD, making up fewer than 5% of participants, the authors note. This has resulted in limited data and created challenges in discerning reasons for the disparity.

The authors note the potential role of genetics in the effectiveness of some biologic agents, although that has not been well studied in Hispanic patients.

Additionally, according to this study, Hispanic patients with IBD lived with more negative social determinants of health, particularly related to food insecurity (27%) and lack of adequate social support (83%), compared with non-Hispanic patients (unpublished data).

“In other studies on health care utilization, Hispanic patients were found to have limited access to appropriate specialist care and lack of insurance coverage,” the authors point out.

The authors acknowledge that limitations of their study include the inability to pinpoint the primary reason for hospitalization because data on primary versus secondary discharge diagnoses were not available. Also, they relied on prescription information in electronic health records and could not confirm that medications were dispensed or that patients took them.

They also acknowledged selection bias as a limitation, because the focus was only on patients treated with biologics and not on outcomes for those who may have warranted a biologic treatment but were unable to receive it.

“Future studies are needed to investigate the biological, social, and environmental drivers of these differences,” the authors write.

The authors’ complete financial disclosures are available with the full text of the paper.

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

An artificial intelligence (AI) tool that runs on a smartphone can help patients scheduled for a colonoscopy evaluate independently how well they do with bowel cleansing and may be an alternative approach for evaluating bowel preparation quality before the colonoscopy, especially in the COVID-19 era.

The AI tool is a “manpower-saving” option that reduces the need for nurses to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation, say Wei Gong, MD, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China, and colleagues.

Having the tool on a patient’s smartphone means caregivers and nurses would not be required to assess the adequacy of bowel cleansing for patients, which, in turn, would reduce person-to-person contact and the spread of infectious diseases, they add.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Better than do-it-yourself evaluation?

The study was conducted at two hospitals in China among consecutive patients prepping for colonoscopy. All participants received standard bowel preparation instructions and were given a leaflet with general guidelines on bowel preparation.

The leaflet included photos representing bowel preparation quality and informed patients that their stool should eventually be a yellowish clear liquid; if any cloudiness (including turbid liquid, particles, or small amounts of feces) is observed in the liquid stool, the bowel preparation is not complete.

All patients were prescribed standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for bowel cleansing 4-6 hours before the colonoscopy.

After consuming the solution, all patients scanned a QR (quick response) code with a smartphone for randomization into an experimental group using the AI-convolutional neural network (AI-CNN) model or a control group using self-evaluation.

The system gave instructions for using the application, taking photos of their feces, and uploading the images.

After uploading the images, the 730 patients in the AI-CNN group automatically received a “pass” or “not pass” alert, which indicated whether their bowel preparation was adequate or not.

The 704 patients in the control group evaluated the adequacy of bowel preparation on their own according to the leaflet instructions after uploading their images.

Colonoscopists and nurses were blinded to the bowel evaluation method that each patient used.

According to the investigators, evaluation results (“pass” or “not pass”) in terms of adequacy of bowel preparation as represented by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores were consistent between the two methods (AI-CNN or self-evaluation).

Overall, there were no significant differences in the two methods in terms of mean BBPS scores, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate.

In subgroup analysis, however, the mean BBPS score of patients with “pass” results was significantly higher in the AI-CNN group than in the self-evaluation control group.

This suggests that the AI-CNN model may further improve the quality of bowel preparation in patients exhibiting adequate bowel preparation, the researchers say.

The results also suggest improved bowel preparation quality of the right colon under the aid of the AI-CNN model, which may be crucial for the prevention of interval colorectal cancer.

The study did not investigate the user acceptability of the AI-CNN model.

“To improve the model and broaden its application in routine practice, evaluating its convenience, accessibility, aspects that cause users difficulty, and user satisfaction is crucial,” the study team concludes.

The study was supported by the Xiamen Medical Health Science and Technology Project and the Xiamen Chang Gung Hospital Science Project. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

An artificial intelligence (AI) tool that runs on a smartphone can help patients scheduled for a colonoscopy evaluate independently how well they do with bowel cleansing and may be an alternative approach for evaluating bowel preparation quality before the colonoscopy, especially in the COVID-19 era.

The AI tool is a “manpower-saving” option that reduces the need for nurses to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation, say Wei Gong, MD, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China, and colleagues.

Having the tool on a patient’s smartphone means caregivers and nurses would not be required to assess the adequacy of bowel cleansing for patients, which, in turn, would reduce person-to-person contact and the spread of infectious diseases, they add.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Better than do-it-yourself evaluation?

The study was conducted at two hospitals in China among consecutive patients prepping for colonoscopy. All participants received standard bowel preparation instructions and were given a leaflet with general guidelines on bowel preparation.

The leaflet included photos representing bowel preparation quality and informed patients that their stool should eventually be a yellowish clear liquid; if any cloudiness (including turbid liquid, particles, or small amounts of feces) is observed in the liquid stool, the bowel preparation is not complete.

All patients were prescribed standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for bowel cleansing 4-6 hours before the colonoscopy.

After consuming the solution, all patients scanned a QR (quick response) code with a smartphone for randomization into an experimental group using the AI-convolutional neural network (AI-CNN) model or a control group using self-evaluation.

The system gave instructions for using the application, taking photos of their feces, and uploading the images.

After uploading the images, the 730 patients in the AI-CNN group automatically received a “pass” or “not pass” alert, which indicated whether their bowel preparation was adequate or not.

The 704 patients in the control group evaluated the adequacy of bowel preparation on their own according to the leaflet instructions after uploading their images.

Colonoscopists and nurses were blinded to the bowel evaluation method that each patient used.

According to the investigators, evaluation results (“pass” or “not pass”) in terms of adequacy of bowel preparation as represented by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores were consistent between the two methods (AI-CNN or self-evaluation).

Overall, there were no significant differences in the two methods in terms of mean BBPS scores, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate.

In subgroup analysis, however, the mean BBPS score of patients with “pass” results was significantly higher in the AI-CNN group than in the self-evaluation control group.

This suggests that the AI-CNN model may further improve the quality of bowel preparation in patients exhibiting adequate bowel preparation, the researchers say.

The results also suggest improved bowel preparation quality of the right colon under the aid of the AI-CNN model, which may be crucial for the prevention of interval colorectal cancer.

The study did not investigate the user acceptability of the AI-CNN model.

“To improve the model and broaden its application in routine practice, evaluating its convenience, accessibility, aspects that cause users difficulty, and user satisfaction is crucial,” the study team concludes.

The study was supported by the Xiamen Medical Health Science and Technology Project and the Xiamen Chang Gung Hospital Science Project. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

An artificial intelligence (AI) tool that runs on a smartphone can help patients scheduled for a colonoscopy evaluate independently how well they do with bowel cleansing and may be an alternative approach for evaluating bowel preparation quality before the colonoscopy, especially in the COVID-19 era.

The AI tool is a “manpower-saving” option that reduces the need for nurses to evaluate the quality of bowel preparation, say Wei Gong, MD, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, China, and colleagues.

Having the tool on a patient’s smartphone means caregivers and nurses would not be required to assess the adequacy of bowel cleansing for patients, which, in turn, would reduce person-to-person contact and the spread of infectious diseases, they add.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Better than do-it-yourself evaluation?

The study was conducted at two hospitals in China among consecutive patients prepping for colonoscopy. All participants received standard bowel preparation instructions and were given a leaflet with general guidelines on bowel preparation.

The leaflet included photos representing bowel preparation quality and informed patients that their stool should eventually be a yellowish clear liquid; if any cloudiness (including turbid liquid, particles, or small amounts of feces) is observed in the liquid stool, the bowel preparation is not complete.

All patients were prescribed standard polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for bowel cleansing 4-6 hours before the colonoscopy.

After consuming the solution, all patients scanned a QR (quick response) code with a smartphone for randomization into an experimental group using the AI-convolutional neural network (AI-CNN) model or a control group using self-evaluation.

The system gave instructions for using the application, taking photos of their feces, and uploading the images.

After uploading the images, the 730 patients in the AI-CNN group automatically received a “pass” or “not pass” alert, which indicated whether their bowel preparation was adequate or not.

The 704 patients in the control group evaluated the adequacy of bowel preparation on their own according to the leaflet instructions after uploading their images.

Colonoscopists and nurses were blinded to the bowel evaluation method that each patient used.

According to the investigators, evaluation results (“pass” or “not pass”) in terms of adequacy of bowel preparation as represented by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores were consistent between the two methods (AI-CNN or self-evaluation).

Overall, there were no significant differences in the two methods in terms of mean BBPS scores, polyp detection rate, or adenoma detection rate.

In subgroup analysis, however, the mean BBPS score of patients with “pass” results was significantly higher in the AI-CNN group than in the self-evaluation control group.

This suggests that the AI-CNN model may further improve the quality of bowel preparation in patients exhibiting adequate bowel preparation, the researchers say.

The results also suggest improved bowel preparation quality of the right colon under the aid of the AI-CNN model, which may be crucial for the prevention of interval colorectal cancer.

The study did not investigate the user acceptability of the AI-CNN model.

“To improve the model and broaden its application in routine practice, evaluating its convenience, accessibility, aspects that cause users difficulty, and user satisfaction is crucial,” the study team concludes.

The study was supported by the Xiamen Medical Health Science and Technology Project and the Xiamen Chang Gung Hospital Science Project. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The more components of metabolic syndrome a person has in midlife seems to raise their risk of dementia, although that relationship seems to go away after age 70, a post hoc analysis of data from a major European cohort study has found.

A team of European researchers reported online in the journal Diabetes Care that the follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study, a study of more than 10,000 civil servants in London that was established in the late 1980s, also found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) may only partially contribute to the risk of dementia in study participants.

They found that each additional metabolic syndrome component before age 60 years was linked to a 13% rise in the risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.23) and, from age 60 to 70, the risk rose 8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). However, in people aged 70 years and older, the relationship wasn’t statistically significant (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13]).

The study used “the latest harmonized definition” of metabolic syndrome; that is, participants were classified as having metabolic syndrome if they had three or more of the five components. As lead author Marcos D. Machado-Fragua, PhD, noted in an email interview, those components are abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high fasting glucose.

“Our research question was on the association between metabolic syndrome and late-life dementia. We found that the presence of one metabolic syndrome component and the presence of metabolic risk before age 60, but not after, is associated with higher risk of dementia,” said Dr. Machado-Fragua, a post-doctoral researcher at the French Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris.

The study cohort consisted of 10,308 London-based civil servants aged 35-55 years. Every 4-5 years after enrollment, from 1991 through 2016, they completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination. The U.K. National Health Service electronic health record system tracked outcomes for all but 10 participants through March 2019.

The study identified the individual metabolic syndrome components that posed the highest risk for dementia in these three age groups:

• Age < 60 years: elevated waist circumference (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.81]), low HDL-C, (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.02, 1.66]), and elevated blood pressure (HR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09, 1.63]).
• Age 60-70 years: low HDL-C (HR 1.26 [95% CI 1.02, 1.57]) and elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.40 [95% CI 1.12, 1.74]).
• Age >70 years: elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.07, 1.79]).

The study found that the dementia risk was significantly high in study participants under age 60 who had at least one (HR 1.99 [95% CI 1.08, 3.66]) or two (HR 1.69 [95% CI 1.12, 2.56]) metabolic syndrome components even when they didn’t have CVD.

“The present study adds to the understanding of the association between metabolic syndrome and dementia due to three novel features,” Dr. Machado-Fragua said. “First, we tested alternative thresholds to define ‘high metabolic risk,’ and findings show increased risk of dementia to start with the presence of one metabolic syndrome component. Second, assessment of metabolic syndrome components in midlife and later life allowed the examination of the role of age at prevalence of metabolic risk for incident dementia at older ages. Third, our findings showed high dementia risk in those free of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, suggesting that the association between high metabolic risk and incident dementia is not fully explained by cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Machado-Fragua added, “For now, a cure for dementia remains elusive, making it important to think of prevention strategies. Our findings support targeting the components of the metabolic syndrome in midlife, even in those who have fewer than three of the metabolic syndrome components.”

Applicability ‘confusing’

In an interview, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, questioned the applicability of the study findings in the clinic. “Metabolic syndrome is a clinical manifestation of insulin resistance,” he said. “The more metabolic syndrome criteria a person has, the more insulin resistant that person will be. There is literature that is [suggesting] that insulin resistance is an important cause of dementia.”

The finding of a higher dementia risk before age 70, compared to afterward, makes the applicability “even more confusing,” he said. The results are even more muddled for U.S. physicians, who have moved away from the term metabolic syndrome in favor of cardiometabolic syndrome, said Dr. Handelsman, medical director and principal investigator at the Metabolic Institute of America and president of the Diabetes CardioRenal & Metabolism Institute, both in Tarzana, Calif.

Confusion also surrounds one of the components of metabolic syndrome: Waist circumference, per the harmonized definition the study used, and body mass index, which the more traditional definition uses.

Nonetheless, metabolic syndrome can be used as “kind of a risk calculator” for CVD, diabetes, and dementia, he said. One strength of the study, Dr. Handelsman said, is its size and scope, following 28 years of data. But a weakness was its observational design. “It doesn’t evaluate any true intervention to modify risk,” he said.

Dr. Machado-Fragua and coauthors have no disclosures.

The more components of metabolic syndrome a person has in midlife seems to raise their risk of dementia, although that relationship seems to go away after age 70, a post hoc analysis of data from a major European cohort study has found.

A team of European researchers reported online in the journal Diabetes Care that the follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study, a study of more than 10,000 civil servants in London that was established in the late 1980s, also found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) may only partially contribute to the risk of dementia in study participants.

They found that each additional metabolic syndrome component before age 60 years was linked to a 13% rise in the risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.23) and, from age 60 to 70, the risk rose 8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). However, in people aged 70 years and older, the relationship wasn’t statistically significant (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13]).

The study used “the latest harmonized definition” of metabolic syndrome; that is, participants were classified as having metabolic syndrome if they had three or more of the five components. As lead author Marcos D. Machado-Fragua, PhD, noted in an email interview, those components are abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high fasting glucose.

“Our research question was on the association between metabolic syndrome and late-life dementia. We found that the presence of one metabolic syndrome component and the presence of metabolic risk before age 60, but not after, is associated with higher risk of dementia,” said Dr. Machado-Fragua, a post-doctoral researcher at the French Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris.

The study cohort consisted of 10,308 London-based civil servants aged 35-55 years. Every 4-5 years after enrollment, from 1991 through 2016, they completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination. The U.K. National Health Service electronic health record system tracked outcomes for all but 10 participants through March 2019.

The study identified the individual metabolic syndrome components that posed the highest risk for dementia in these three age groups:

• Age < 60 years: elevated waist circumference (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.81]), low HDL-C, (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.02, 1.66]), and elevated blood pressure (HR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09, 1.63]).
• Age 60-70 years: low HDL-C (HR 1.26 [95% CI 1.02, 1.57]) and elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.40 [95% CI 1.12, 1.74]).
• Age >70 years: elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.07, 1.79]).

The study found that the dementia risk was significantly high in study participants under age 60 who had at least one (HR 1.99 [95% CI 1.08, 3.66]) or two (HR 1.69 [95% CI 1.12, 2.56]) metabolic syndrome components even when they didn’t have CVD.

“The present study adds to the understanding of the association between metabolic syndrome and dementia due to three novel features,” Dr. Machado-Fragua said. “First, we tested alternative thresholds to define ‘high metabolic risk,’ and findings show increased risk of dementia to start with the presence of one metabolic syndrome component. Second, assessment of metabolic syndrome components in midlife and later life allowed the examination of the role of age at prevalence of metabolic risk for incident dementia at older ages. Third, our findings showed high dementia risk in those free of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, suggesting that the association between high metabolic risk and incident dementia is not fully explained by cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Machado-Fragua added, “For now, a cure for dementia remains elusive, making it important to think of prevention strategies. Our findings support targeting the components of the metabolic syndrome in midlife, even in those who have fewer than three of the metabolic syndrome components.”

Applicability ‘confusing’

In an interview, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, questioned the applicability of the study findings in the clinic. “Metabolic syndrome is a clinical manifestation of insulin resistance,” he said. “The more metabolic syndrome criteria a person has, the more insulin resistant that person will be. There is literature that is [suggesting] that insulin resistance is an important cause of dementia.”

The finding of a higher dementia risk before age 70, compared to afterward, makes the applicability “even more confusing,” he said. The results are even more muddled for U.S. physicians, who have moved away from the term metabolic syndrome in favor of cardiometabolic syndrome, said Dr. Handelsman, medical director and principal investigator at the Metabolic Institute of America and president of the Diabetes CardioRenal & Metabolism Institute, both in Tarzana, Calif.

Confusion also surrounds one of the components of metabolic syndrome: Waist circumference, per the harmonized definition the study used, and body mass index, which the more traditional definition uses.

Nonetheless, metabolic syndrome can be used as “kind of a risk calculator” for CVD, diabetes, and dementia, he said. One strength of the study, Dr. Handelsman said, is its size and scope, following 28 years of data. But a weakness was its observational design. “It doesn’t evaluate any true intervention to modify risk,” he said.

Dr. Machado-Fragua and coauthors have no disclosures.

The more components of metabolic syndrome a person has in midlife seems to raise their risk of dementia, although that relationship seems to go away after age 70, a post hoc analysis of data from a major European cohort study has found.

A team of European researchers reported online in the journal Diabetes Care that the follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study, a study of more than 10,000 civil servants in London that was established in the late 1980s, also found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) may only partially contribute to the risk of dementia in study participants.

They found that each additional metabolic syndrome component before age 60 years was linked to a 13% rise in the risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.23) and, from age 60 to 70, the risk rose 8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). However, in people aged 70 years and older, the relationship wasn’t statistically significant (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13]).

The study used “the latest harmonized definition” of metabolic syndrome; that is, participants were classified as having metabolic syndrome if they had three or more of the five components. As lead author Marcos D. Machado-Fragua, PhD, noted in an email interview, those components are abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high fasting glucose.

“Our research question was on the association between metabolic syndrome and late-life dementia. We found that the presence of one metabolic syndrome component and the presence of metabolic risk before age 60, but not after, is associated with higher risk of dementia,” said Dr. Machado-Fragua, a post-doctoral researcher at the French Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris.

The study cohort consisted of 10,308 London-based civil servants aged 35-55 years. Every 4-5 years after enrollment, from 1991 through 2016, they completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination. The U.K. National Health Service electronic health record system tracked outcomes for all but 10 participants through March 2019.

The study identified the individual metabolic syndrome components that posed the highest risk for dementia in these three age groups:

• Age < 60 years: elevated waist circumference (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.81]), low HDL-C, (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.02, 1.66]), and elevated blood pressure (HR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09, 1.63]).
• Age 60-70 years: low HDL-C (HR 1.26 [95% CI 1.02, 1.57]) and elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.40 [95% CI 1.12, 1.74]).
• Age >70 years: elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.07, 1.79]).

The study found that the dementia risk was significantly high in study participants under age 60 who had at least one (HR 1.99 [95% CI 1.08, 3.66]) or two (HR 1.69 [95% CI 1.12, 2.56]) metabolic syndrome components even when they didn’t have CVD.

“The present study adds to the understanding of the association between metabolic syndrome and dementia due to three novel features,” Dr. Machado-Fragua said. “First, we tested alternative thresholds to define ‘high metabolic risk,’ and findings show increased risk of dementia to start with the presence of one metabolic syndrome component. Second, assessment of metabolic syndrome components in midlife and later life allowed the examination of the role of age at prevalence of metabolic risk for incident dementia at older ages. Third, our findings showed high dementia risk in those free of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, suggesting that the association between high metabolic risk and incident dementia is not fully explained by cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Machado-Fragua added, “For now, a cure for dementia remains elusive, making it important to think of prevention strategies. Our findings support targeting the components of the metabolic syndrome in midlife, even in those who have fewer than three of the metabolic syndrome components.”

Applicability ‘confusing’

In an interview, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, questioned the applicability of the study findings in the clinic. “Metabolic syndrome is a clinical manifestation of insulin resistance,” he said. “The more metabolic syndrome criteria a person has, the more insulin resistant that person will be. There is literature that is [suggesting] that insulin resistance is an important cause of dementia.”

The finding of a higher dementia risk before age 70, compared to afterward, makes the applicability “even more confusing,” he said. The results are even more muddled for U.S. physicians, who have moved away from the term metabolic syndrome in favor of cardiometabolic syndrome, said Dr. Handelsman, medical director and principal investigator at the Metabolic Institute of America and president of the Diabetes CardioRenal & Metabolism Institute, both in Tarzana, Calif.

Confusion also surrounds one of the components of metabolic syndrome: Waist circumference, per the harmonized definition the study used, and body mass index, which the more traditional definition uses.

Nonetheless, metabolic syndrome can be used as “kind of a risk calculator” for CVD, diabetes, and dementia, he said. One strength of the study, Dr. Handelsman said, is its size and scope, following 28 years of data. But a weakness was its observational design. “It doesn’t evaluate any true intervention to modify risk,” he said.

Dr. Machado-Fragua and coauthors have no disclosures.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Ongoing follow-up and lifestyle interventions are needed in lean patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), suggests a panel of experts in a recent review.

They also urge screening for NAFLD in individuals who are older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes, even if they are not overweight.

NAFLD is a leading cause of chronic liver disease that affects more than 25% of the United States and worldwide populations, note lead author Michelle T. Long, MD, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, and colleagues.

Evidence-based approaches

The 15 best practice advice statements covered a wide range of clinical areas, first defining lean as a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 in non-Asian persons and less than 23 in Asian persons.

The authors go on to stipulate, for example, that lean individuals in the general population should not be screened for NAFLD but that screening should be considered for individuals older than 40 years with type 2 diabetes.

More broadly, they write that the condition should be considered in lean individuals with metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, as well as elevated values on liver biochemical tests or incidentally noted hepatic steatosis.

After other causes of liver diseases are ruled out, the authors note that clinicians should consider liver biopsy as the reference test if uncertainties remain about liver injury causes and/or liver fibrosis staging.

They also write that the NAFLD fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score, along with imaging techniques, may be used as alternatives to biopsy for staging and during follow-up.

The authors, who provide a diagnosis and management algorithm to aid clinicians, suggest that lean patients with NAFLD follow lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, diet modification, and avoidance of fructose- and sugar-sweetened drinks, to achieve weight loss of 3%-5%.

Vitamin E may be considered, they continue, in patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis but without type 2 diabetes or cirrhosis. Additionally, oral pioglitazone may be considered in lean persons with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis without cirrhosis.

In contrast, they write that the role of glucagonlike peptide 1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors requires further investigation.

The advice also says that lean patients with NAFLD should be routinely evaluated for comorbid conditions, such as type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, and risk-stratified for hepatic fibrosis to identify those with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis.

For lean patients with NAFLD and clinical markers compatible with liver cirrhosis, twice-yearly surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma is also advised.

Fatty liver disease in lean people with metabolic conditions

Approached for comment, Liyun Yuan, MD, PhD, assistant professor of clinical medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said it is very important to have uniform guidelines for general practitioners and other specialties on NAFLD in lean individuals.

Dr. Yuan, who was not involved in the review, told this news organization that it is crucial to raise awareness of NAFLD, just like awareness of breast cancer screening among women of a certain age was increased, so that individuals are screened for metabolic conditions regardless of whether they have obesity or overweight.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., added that there is a lack of awareness that NAFLD occurs in lean individuals, especially in those who have diabetes.

He said in an interview that although it is accurate to define individuals as being lean in terms of their BMI, the best way is to look not only at BMI but also at waist circumference.

Dr. Younossi said that he and his colleagues have shown that when BMI is combined with waist circumference, the prediction of mortality risk in NAFLD is affected, such that lean individuals with an obese waist circumference have a higher risk for all-cause mortality.

Dr. Long is supported in part by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Gilead Sciences Research Scholars Award, Boston University School of Medicine Department of Medicine Career Investment Award, and Boston University Clinical Translational Science Institute. Dr. Long declares relationships with Novo Nordisk, Echosens Corporation, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Yuan declares relationships with Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead Sciences. Dr. Younossi declares no relevant relationships.

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

*This article was updated on July 27, 2022.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

Over the past several years, the number of patients seeking gender-affirming services has exponentially increased.¹ Unfortunately, the number of patients presenting for treatment has exceeded evidence-based guidelines, research, and the number of providers familiar with gender-affirming care. Many institutions and associations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) advocate for training of providers; however, many patients will be seen by providers who are not qualified in diagnosing gender dysphoria. As a result, many practitioners rely on the mental health evaluation of gender-diverse individuals prior to prescribing hormonal therapy or before planning surgery.

Practitioners qualified to provide mental health services can include persons within in the field of psychology, psychiatry, social work, licensed professional counseling, nursing, or family medicine (with specific training in mental health).² WPATH also defines specific criteria as part of the mental health assessment. For example, providers should have a master’s degree or higher in clinical behavioral science, competence in using the DSM/ICD, the ability to recognize and diagnose coexisting mental health concerns, and undergo continuing education in the treatment of gender dysphoria.² Unfortunately, the demand for gender-competent mental health professionals exceeds the number available, and many patients are seen by therapists lacking experience within this field.³ This discrepancy can present an additional barrier to the health needs of transgender patients and sometimes inhibit access to hormone therapy, or even more catastrophically, compromise their presurgical assessment and surgical outcome.

For patients seeking chest surgery (mastectomy or breast augmentation), one letter from a mental health provider is necessary. If a patient is interested in pursuing genital surgery or the removal or reproductive organs, two letters from two separate mental health providers are required. Typically, one letter is from the patient’s primary therapist, and the other is often a second opinion. These letters must include a patient’s general characteristics, psychosocial assessment results, duration of the mental health professional’s relationship with the client, an explanation that the criteria for surgery have been met, a statement supporting the patient’s request for surgery and that informed consent was obtained, and a statement that the mental health professional is available for coordination of care.² It is crucial to delineate that while a mental health evaluation is mandated, psychotherapy is not.

A therapist’s letter is not essential prior to initiating hormones; however, it is recommended if practitioners are unfamiliar with gender-diverse patients and current standards of care. If a provider such as a family physician, endocrinologist, or obstetrician/gynecologist is knowledgeable about the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, they can prescribe hormones without a therapist’s letter. Additional considerations include establishing whether a patient has persistent gender dysphoria, has the capacity to give informed consent, and has “reasonably well-controlled” mental illness.³ The prevalence of both depression and anxiety is exceptionally high in this population, whereas rates of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia mirror that of the general population.³ Mental illness is not a contraindication to hormone therapy because there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of gender-affirming hormones in reducing both anxiety and depression.

In contrast, concurrent severe psychiatric illness (i.e., bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder) that is not well controlled could prohibit patients from undergoing gender-affirming surgeries. Even the most well-educated patients do not truly understand the process of surgery and the rigorous postoperative care required, particularly after genital surgery. Many patients underestimate the need for a support system in the postoperative period and cannot predict their emotional response after undergoing such complex procedures. During a surgical consultation, the surgeon can help identify any mental, physical, monetary, or social constraints patients may have and work closely with other providers, including a well-trained mental health professional, to optimize a patient’s surgical recovery. Ideally, patients undergoing surgery are seen at multidisciplinary centers with the capabilities of addressing these concerns.

The patient’s perspective on the need for a therapist is often mixed. Historically, therapist letters have been viewed by patients as a form of “gatekeeping” and an additional barrier they are forced to overcome to receive treatment. However, the role of a mental health provider who specializes in gender-affirming care cannot be overstated. In the context of surgery, I often try to reframe the role the therapist as an integral part of the multidisciplinary team. Mental health assessments preoperatively can better prepare patients for their upcoming surgery. More importantly, this multidisciplinary approach can help identify potential issues with coping strategies or exacerbations of other mental health conditions that may arise in the immediate postoperative period.

There is no question that exceptional gender-affirming care requires a multidisciplinary approach. Establishing strong relationships between hormone prescribers, surgeons, and behavioral health specialists in an essential step toward providing competent patient-centered care.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa.

References

1. Ettner R. Mental health evaluation for gender confirmation surgery. Clin Plastic Surg. 2018;45(3):307-11.

2. Karasic D. Mental health care for the adult transgender patient. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020:8-11.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people. 7th ed. Minneapolis: WPATH; 2012.

The global prevalence of fatty liver disease not caused by alcohol is considerably higher than previously estimated and is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, report researchers from Canada.

Their analysis suggests nearly one-third of the global general adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), with men much more likely to have the disease than women.

“Greater awareness of NAFLD and the development of cost-effective risk stratification strategies are needed to address the growing burden NAFLD,” wrote Abdel-Aziz Shaheen, MBBCh, MSc, and colleagues with the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published online in Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

NAFLD is the most common liver disease worldwide and a leading cause of liver-related illness and death. Yet, high-quality reports on the epidemiology of NAFLD at a global level are scarce and temporal trends of the NAFLD burden, including by gender, have not been described, until now.

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, the Calgary team identified reports on NAFLD incidence and prevalence in study populations representative of the general adult population published between the date of database inception to May 25, 2021.

In total, 72 publications, with a sample population of more than 1 million adults from 17 countries, were included in the prevalence analysis, and 16 publications, with a sample population of nearly 382,000 individuals from five countries, were included in the incidence analysis.

By their estimates, the overall global prevalence of NAFLD is 32.4%, with prevalence increasing steadily and significantly over time, from 25.5% in or before 2005 to 37.8% in 2016 or later. The overall prevalence is significantly higher in men than in women (39.7% vs. 25.6%).

These figures contrast with recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews that put the global prevalence of NAFLD at between 25.2% and 29.8%. However, these studies had “considerable” limitations with “potentially biased inferences,” Dr. Shaheen and colleagues noted.

By region, their data put the prevalence of NAFLD at 31.6% in Asia, 32.6% in Europe, 47.8% in North America, and 56.8% in Africa.

Dr. Shaheen and colleagues estimate the overall incidence of NAFLD to be 46.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, with a higher incidence in men than women (70.8 vs. 29.6 cases per 1000 person-years), in line with the gender differences in prevalence.

They caution that there was “considerable” heterogeneity between studies in both NAFLD prevalence and incidence (I₂ = 99.9%) and few “high-quality” studies.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Shaheen and colleagues said the rise in NAFLD prevalence “should drive enhanced awareness of NAFLD at the level of primary care physicians, public health specialists, and health policy makers to encourage the development of more effective preventive policies.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health. Dr. Shaheen has received research grants from Gilead and Intercept, and honoraria from SCOPE Canada.

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

The global prevalence of fatty liver disease not caused by alcohol is considerably higher than previously estimated and is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, report researchers from Canada.

Their analysis suggests nearly one-third of the global general adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), with men much more likely to have the disease than women.

“Greater awareness of NAFLD and the development of cost-effective risk stratification strategies are needed to address the growing burden NAFLD,” wrote Abdel-Aziz Shaheen, MBBCh, MSc, and colleagues with the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published online in Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

NAFLD is the most common liver disease worldwide and a leading cause of liver-related illness and death. Yet, high-quality reports on the epidemiology of NAFLD at a global level are scarce and temporal trends of the NAFLD burden, including by gender, have not been described, until now.

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, the Calgary team identified reports on NAFLD incidence and prevalence in study populations representative of the general adult population published between the date of database inception to May 25, 2021.

In total, 72 publications, with a sample population of more than 1 million adults from 17 countries, were included in the prevalence analysis, and 16 publications, with a sample population of nearly 382,000 individuals from five countries, were included in the incidence analysis.

By their estimates, the overall global prevalence of NAFLD is 32.4%, with prevalence increasing steadily and significantly over time, from 25.5% in or before 2005 to 37.8% in 2016 or later. The overall prevalence is significantly higher in men than in women (39.7% vs. 25.6%).

These figures contrast with recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews that put the global prevalence of NAFLD at between 25.2% and 29.8%. However, these studies had “considerable” limitations with “potentially biased inferences,” Dr. Shaheen and colleagues noted.

By region, their data put the prevalence of NAFLD at 31.6% in Asia, 32.6% in Europe, 47.8% in North America, and 56.8% in Africa.

Dr. Shaheen and colleagues estimate the overall incidence of NAFLD to be 46.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, with a higher incidence in men than women (70.8 vs. 29.6 cases per 1000 person-years), in line with the gender differences in prevalence.

They caution that there was “considerable” heterogeneity between studies in both NAFLD prevalence and incidence (I₂ = 99.9%) and few “high-quality” studies.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Shaheen and colleagues said the rise in NAFLD prevalence “should drive enhanced awareness of NAFLD at the level of primary care physicians, public health specialists, and health policy makers to encourage the development of more effective preventive policies.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health. Dr. Shaheen has received research grants from Gilead and Intercept, and honoraria from SCOPE Canada.

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

The global prevalence of fatty liver disease not caused by alcohol is considerably higher than previously estimated and is continuing to increase at an alarming rate, report researchers from Canada.

Their analysis suggests nearly one-third of the global general adult population has nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), with men much more likely to have the disease than women.

“Greater awareness of NAFLD and the development of cost-effective risk stratification strategies are needed to address the growing burden NAFLD,” wrote Abdel-Aziz Shaheen, MBBCh, MSc, and colleagues with the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published online in Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

NAFLD is the most common liver disease worldwide and a leading cause of liver-related illness and death. Yet, high-quality reports on the epidemiology of NAFLD at a global level are scarce and temporal trends of the NAFLD burden, including by gender, have not been described, until now.

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, the Calgary team identified reports on NAFLD incidence and prevalence in study populations representative of the general adult population published between the date of database inception to May 25, 2021.

In total, 72 publications, with a sample population of more than 1 million adults from 17 countries, were included in the prevalence analysis, and 16 publications, with a sample population of nearly 382,000 individuals from five countries, were included in the incidence analysis.

By their estimates, the overall global prevalence of NAFLD is 32.4%, with prevalence increasing steadily and significantly over time, from 25.5% in or before 2005 to 37.8% in 2016 or later. The overall prevalence is significantly higher in men than in women (39.7% vs. 25.6%).

These figures contrast with recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews that put the global prevalence of NAFLD at between 25.2% and 29.8%. However, these studies had “considerable” limitations with “potentially biased inferences,” Dr. Shaheen and colleagues noted.

By region, their data put the prevalence of NAFLD at 31.6% in Asia, 32.6% in Europe, 47.8% in North America, and 56.8% in Africa.

Dr. Shaheen and colleagues estimate the overall incidence of NAFLD to be 46.9 cases per 1,000 person-years, with a higher incidence in men than women (70.8 vs. 29.6 cases per 1000 person-years), in line with the gender differences in prevalence.

They caution that there was “considerable” heterogeneity between studies in both NAFLD prevalence and incidence (I₂ = 99.9%) and few “high-quality” studies.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Shaheen and colleagues said the rise in NAFLD prevalence “should drive enhanced awareness of NAFLD at the level of primary care physicians, public health specialists, and health policy makers to encourage the development of more effective preventive policies.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Canadian Institutes of Health. Dr. Shaheen has received research grants from Gilead and Intercept, and honoraria from SCOPE Canada.

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

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second week in a row as cumulative cases among U.S. children passed the 14-million mark, but a recent survey shows that more than half of parents believe that the vaccine is a greater risk to children under age 5 years than the virus.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey conducted July 7-17, 53% of parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years said that the vaccine is “a bigger risk to their child’s health than getting infected with COVID-19, compared to 44% who say getting infected is the bigger risk,” KFF reported July 26.

More than 4 out of 10 of respondents (43%) said that they will “definitely not” get their eligible children vaccinated, while only 7% said that their children had already received it and 10% said their children would get it as soon as possible, according to the KFF survey, which had an overall sample size of 1,847 adults, including an oversample of 471 parents of children under age 5.

Vaccine initiation has been slow in the first month since it was approved for the youngest children. Just 2.8% of all eligible children under age 5 had received an initial dose as of July 19, compared with first-month uptake figures of more than 18% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 27% for those aged 12-15, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The current rates for vaccination in those aged 5 and older look like this: 70.2% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, versus 37.1% of those aged 5-11. Just over 60% of the older children were fully vaccinated as of July 19, as were 30.2% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Number of new cases hits 2-month high

Despite the vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 and its various mutations have continued with their summer travels. With 92,000 newly infected children added for the week of July 15-21, there have now been a total of 14,003,497 pediatric cases reported since the start of the pandemic, which works out to 18.6% of cases in all ages, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The 92,000 new cases represent an increase of almost 22% over the previous week and mark the highest 1-week count since May, when the total passed 100,000 for 2 consecutive weeks. More recently the trend had seemed more stable as weekly cases dropped twice and rose twice as the total hovered around 70,000, based on the data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

A different scenario has played out for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of April. The admission rate for children aged 0-17, which was just 0.13 new patients per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.44 per 100,000 on July 21. By comparison, the highest rate reached last year during the Delta surge was 0.47 per 100,000, based on CDC data.

The 7-day average of emergency dept. visits among the youngest age group, 0-11 years, shows the same general increase as hospital admissions, but the older children have diverged form that path (see graph). For those aged 12-15 and 16-17, hospitalizations started dropping in late May and into mid-June before climbing again, although more slowly than for the youngest group, the CDC data show.

The ED visit rate with diagnosed COVID among those aged 0-11, measured at 6.1% of all visits on July 19, is, in fact, considerably higher than at any time during the Delta surge last year, when it never passed 4.0%, although much lower than peak Omicron (14.1%). That 6.1% was also higher than any other age group on that day, adults included, the CDC said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second week in a row as cumulative cases among U.S. children passed the 14-million mark, but a recent survey shows that more than half of parents believe that the vaccine is a greater risk to children under age 5 years than the virus.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey conducted July 7-17, 53% of parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years said that the vaccine is “a bigger risk to their child’s health than getting infected with COVID-19, compared to 44% who say getting infected is the bigger risk,” KFF reported July 26.

More than 4 out of 10 of respondents (43%) said that they will “definitely not” get their eligible children vaccinated, while only 7% said that their children had already received it and 10% said their children would get it as soon as possible, according to the KFF survey, which had an overall sample size of 1,847 adults, including an oversample of 471 parents of children under age 5.

Vaccine initiation has been slow in the first month since it was approved for the youngest children. Just 2.8% of all eligible children under age 5 had received an initial dose as of July 19, compared with first-month uptake figures of more than 18% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 27% for those aged 12-15, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The current rates for vaccination in those aged 5 and older look like this: 70.2% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, versus 37.1% of those aged 5-11. Just over 60% of the older children were fully vaccinated as of July 19, as were 30.2% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Number of new cases hits 2-month high

Despite the vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 and its various mutations have continued with their summer travels. With 92,000 newly infected children added for the week of July 15-21, there have now been a total of 14,003,497 pediatric cases reported since the start of the pandemic, which works out to 18.6% of cases in all ages, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The 92,000 new cases represent an increase of almost 22% over the previous week and mark the highest 1-week count since May, when the total passed 100,000 for 2 consecutive weeks. More recently the trend had seemed more stable as weekly cases dropped twice and rose twice as the total hovered around 70,000, based on the data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

A different scenario has played out for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of April. The admission rate for children aged 0-17, which was just 0.13 new patients per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.44 per 100,000 on July 21. By comparison, the highest rate reached last year during the Delta surge was 0.47 per 100,000, based on CDC data.

The 7-day average of emergency dept. visits among the youngest age group, 0-11 years, shows the same general increase as hospital admissions, but the older children have diverged form that path (see graph). For those aged 12-15 and 16-17, hospitalizations started dropping in late May and into mid-June before climbing again, although more slowly than for the youngest group, the CDC data show.

The ED visit rate with diagnosed COVID among those aged 0-11, measured at 6.1% of all visits on July 19, is, in fact, considerably higher than at any time during the Delta surge last year, when it never passed 4.0%, although much lower than peak Omicron (14.1%). That 6.1% was also higher than any other age group on that day, adults included, the CDC said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

New COVID-19 cases rose for the second week in a row as cumulative cases among U.S. children passed the 14-million mark, but a recent survey shows that more than half of parents believe that the vaccine is a greater risk to children under age 5 years than the virus.

In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey conducted July 7-17, 53% of parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years said that the vaccine is “a bigger risk to their child’s health than getting infected with COVID-19, compared to 44% who say getting infected is the bigger risk,” KFF reported July 26.

More than 4 out of 10 of respondents (43%) said that they will “definitely not” get their eligible children vaccinated, while only 7% said that their children had already received it and 10% said their children would get it as soon as possible, according to the KFF survey, which had an overall sample size of 1,847 adults, including an oversample of 471 parents of children under age 5.

Vaccine initiation has been slow in the first month since it was approved for the youngest children. Just 2.8% of all eligible children under age 5 had received an initial dose as of July 19, compared with first-month uptake figures of more than 18% for the 5- to 11-year-olds and 27% for those aged 12-15, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The current rates for vaccination in those aged 5 and older look like this: 70.2% of 12- to 17-year-olds have received at least one dose, versus 37.1% of those aged 5-11. Just over 60% of the older children were fully vaccinated as of July 19, as were 30.2% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
 

Number of new cases hits 2-month high

Despite the vaccine, SARS-CoV-2 and its various mutations have continued with their summer travels. With 92,000 newly infected children added for the week of July 15-21, there have now been a total of 14,003,497 pediatric cases reported since the start of the pandemic, which works out to 18.6% of cases in all ages, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

The 92,000 new cases represent an increase of almost 22% over the previous week and mark the highest 1-week count since May, when the total passed 100,000 for 2 consecutive weeks. More recently the trend had seemed more stable as weekly cases dropped twice and rose twice as the total hovered around 70,000, based on the data collected by the AAP and CHA from state and territorial health departments.

A different scenario has played out for emergency department visits and hospital admissions, which have risen steadily since the beginning of April. The admission rate for children aged 0-17, which was just 0.13 new patients per 100,000 population on April 11, was up to 0.44 per 100,000 on July 21. By comparison, the highest rate reached last year during the Delta surge was 0.47 per 100,000, based on CDC data.

The 7-day average of emergency dept. visits among the youngest age group, 0-11 years, shows the same general increase as hospital admissions, but the older children have diverged form that path (see graph). For those aged 12-15 and 16-17, hospitalizations started dropping in late May and into mid-June before climbing again, although more slowly than for the youngest group, the CDC data show.

The ED visit rate with diagnosed COVID among those aged 0-11, measured at 6.1% of all visits on July 19, is, in fact, considerably higher than at any time during the Delta surge last year, when it never passed 4.0%, although much lower than peak Omicron (14.1%). That 6.1% was also higher than any other age group on that day, adults included, the CDC said.

rfranki@mdedge.com

If 80% of individuals with hypertension were screened, 80% received treatment, and 80% then reached guideline-specified targets, up to 200 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 130 million deaths could be averted by 2050, a modeling study suggests.

Achievement of the 80-80-80 target “could be one of the single most important global public health accomplishments of the coming decades,” according to the authors.

“We need to reprioritize hypertension care in our practices,” principal investigator David A. Watkins, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization. “Only about one in five persons with hypertension around the world has their blood pressure well controlled. Oftentimes, clinicians are focused on addressing patients’ other health needs, many of which can be pressing in the short term, and we forget to talk about blood pressure, which has more than earned its reputation as ‘the silent killer.’ ”

The modeling study was published online  in Nature Medicine, with lead author Sarah J. Pickersgill, MPH, also from the University of Washington.
 

Two interventions, three scenarios

Dr. Watkins and colleagues based their analysis on two approaches to blood pressure (BP) control shown to be beneficial: drug treatment to a systolic BP of either 130 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg or less, depending on local guidelines, and dietary sodium reduction, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

The team modeled the impacts of these interventions in 182 countries according to three scenarios:

• Business as usual (control): allowing hypertension to increase at historic rates of change and mean sodium intake to remain at current levels
• Progress: matching historically high-performing countries (for example, accelerating hypertension control by about 3% per year at intermediate levels of intervention coverage) while lowering mean sodium intake by 15% by 2030
• Aspirational: hypertension control achieved faster than historically high-performing countries (about 4% per year) and mean sodium intake decreased by 30% by 2027

The analysis suggests that in the progressive scenario, all countries could achieve 80-80-80 targets by 2050 and most countries by 2040; the aspirational scenario would have all countries meeting them by 2040. That would result in reductions in all-cause mortality of 4%-7% (76 million to 130 million deaths averted) with progressive and aspirational interventions, respectively, compared with the control scenario.

There would also be a slower rise in expected CVD from population growth and aging (110 million to 200 million cases averted). That is, the probability of dying from any CVD cause between the ages of 30 and 80 years would be reduced by 16% in the progressive scenario and 26% in the aspirational scenario.

Of note, about 83%-85% of the potential mortality reductions would result from scaling up hypertension treatment in the progressive and aspirational scenarios, respectively, with the remaining 15%-17% coming from sodium reduction, the researchers state.

Further, they propose, scaling up BP interventions could reduce CVD inequalities across countries, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries likely experiencing the largest reductions in disease rates and mortality.
 

Implementation barriers

“Health systems in many low- and middle-income countries have not traditionally been set up to succeed in chronic disease management in primary care,” Dr. Watkins noted. For interventions to be successful, he said, “several barriers need to be addressed, including: low population awareness of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, which leads to low rates of screening and treatment; high out-of-pocket cost and low availability of medicines for chronic diseases; and need for adherence support and provider incentives for improving quality of chronic disease care in primary care settings.”

“Based on the analysis, achieving the 80-80-80 seems feasible, though actually getting there may be much more complicated. I wonder whether countries have the resources to implement the needed policies,” Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, MD, researcher, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, told this news organization.

“It may be challenging, particularly after COVID-19, which revealed deficiencies in many health care systems, and care for hypertension may have been disturbed,” said Dr. Carrillo-Larco, who is not connected with the analysis.

That said, simplified BP screening approaches could help maximize the number of people screened overall, potentially identifying those with hypertension and raising awareness, he proposed. His team’s recent study showed that such approaches vary from country to country but are generally reliable and can be used effectively for population screening.

In addition, Dr. Carrillo-Larco said, any efforts by clinicians to improve adherence and help patients achieve BP control “would also have positive effects at the population level.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with additional funding by a grant to Dr. Watkins from Resolve to Save Lives. No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

If 80% of individuals with hypertension were screened, 80% received treatment, and 80% then reached guideline-specified targets, up to 200 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 130 million deaths could be averted by 2050, a modeling study suggests.

Achievement of the 80-80-80 target “could be one of the single most important global public health accomplishments of the coming decades,” according to the authors.

“We need to reprioritize hypertension care in our practices,” principal investigator David A. Watkins, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization. “Only about one in five persons with hypertension around the world has their blood pressure well controlled. Oftentimes, clinicians are focused on addressing patients’ other health needs, many of which can be pressing in the short term, and we forget to talk about blood pressure, which has more than earned its reputation as ‘the silent killer.’ ”

The modeling study was published online  in Nature Medicine, with lead author Sarah J. Pickersgill, MPH, also from the University of Washington.
 

Two interventions, three scenarios

Dr. Watkins and colleagues based their analysis on two approaches to blood pressure (BP) control shown to be beneficial: drug treatment to a systolic BP of either 130 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg or less, depending on local guidelines, and dietary sodium reduction, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

The team modeled the impacts of these interventions in 182 countries according to three scenarios:

• Business as usual (control): allowing hypertension to increase at historic rates of change and mean sodium intake to remain at current levels
• Progress: matching historically high-performing countries (for example, accelerating hypertension control by about 3% per year at intermediate levels of intervention coverage) while lowering mean sodium intake by 15% by 2030
• Aspirational: hypertension control achieved faster than historically high-performing countries (about 4% per year) and mean sodium intake decreased by 30% by 2027

The analysis suggests that in the progressive scenario, all countries could achieve 80-80-80 targets by 2050 and most countries by 2040; the aspirational scenario would have all countries meeting them by 2040. That would result in reductions in all-cause mortality of 4%-7% (76 million to 130 million deaths averted) with progressive and aspirational interventions, respectively, compared with the control scenario.

There would also be a slower rise in expected CVD from population growth and aging (110 million to 200 million cases averted). That is, the probability of dying from any CVD cause between the ages of 30 and 80 years would be reduced by 16% in the progressive scenario and 26% in the aspirational scenario.

Of note, about 83%-85% of the potential mortality reductions would result from scaling up hypertension treatment in the progressive and aspirational scenarios, respectively, with the remaining 15%-17% coming from sodium reduction, the researchers state.

Further, they propose, scaling up BP interventions could reduce CVD inequalities across countries, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries likely experiencing the largest reductions in disease rates and mortality.
 

Implementation barriers

“Health systems in many low- and middle-income countries have not traditionally been set up to succeed in chronic disease management in primary care,” Dr. Watkins noted. For interventions to be successful, he said, “several barriers need to be addressed, including: low population awareness of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, which leads to low rates of screening and treatment; high out-of-pocket cost and low availability of medicines for chronic diseases; and need for adherence support and provider incentives for improving quality of chronic disease care in primary care settings.”

“Based on the analysis, achieving the 80-80-80 seems feasible, though actually getting there may be much more complicated. I wonder whether countries have the resources to implement the needed policies,” Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, MD, researcher, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, told this news organization.

“It may be challenging, particularly after COVID-19, which revealed deficiencies in many health care systems, and care for hypertension may have been disturbed,” said Dr. Carrillo-Larco, who is not connected with the analysis.

That said, simplified BP screening approaches could help maximize the number of people screened overall, potentially identifying those with hypertension and raising awareness, he proposed. His team’s recent study showed that such approaches vary from country to country but are generally reliable and can be used effectively for population screening.

In addition, Dr. Carrillo-Larco said, any efforts by clinicians to improve adherence and help patients achieve BP control “would also have positive effects at the population level.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with additional funding by a grant to Dr. Watkins from Resolve to Save Lives. No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

If 80% of individuals with hypertension were screened, 80% received treatment, and 80% then reached guideline-specified targets, up to 200 million cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 130 million deaths could be averted by 2050, a modeling study suggests.

Achievement of the 80-80-80 target “could be one of the single most important global public health accomplishments of the coming decades,” according to the authors.

“We need to reprioritize hypertension care in our practices,” principal investigator David A. Watkins, MD, MPH, University of Washington, Seattle, told this news organization. “Only about one in five persons with hypertension around the world has their blood pressure well controlled. Oftentimes, clinicians are focused on addressing patients’ other health needs, many of which can be pressing in the short term, and we forget to talk about blood pressure, which has more than earned its reputation as ‘the silent killer.’ ”

The modeling study was published online  in Nature Medicine, with lead author Sarah J. Pickersgill, MPH, also from the University of Washington.
 

Two interventions, three scenarios

Dr. Watkins and colleagues based their analysis on two approaches to blood pressure (BP) control shown to be beneficial: drug treatment to a systolic BP of either 130 mm Hg or 140 mm Hg or less, depending on local guidelines, and dietary sodium reduction, as recommended by the World Health Organization.

The team modeled the impacts of these interventions in 182 countries according to three scenarios:

• Business as usual (control): allowing hypertension to increase at historic rates of change and mean sodium intake to remain at current levels
• Progress: matching historically high-performing countries (for example, accelerating hypertension control by about 3% per year at intermediate levels of intervention coverage) while lowering mean sodium intake by 15% by 2030
• Aspirational: hypertension control achieved faster than historically high-performing countries (about 4% per year) and mean sodium intake decreased by 30% by 2027

The analysis suggests that in the progressive scenario, all countries could achieve 80-80-80 targets by 2050 and most countries by 2040; the aspirational scenario would have all countries meeting them by 2040. That would result in reductions in all-cause mortality of 4%-7% (76 million to 130 million deaths averted) with progressive and aspirational interventions, respectively, compared with the control scenario.

There would also be a slower rise in expected CVD from population growth and aging (110 million to 200 million cases averted). That is, the probability of dying from any CVD cause between the ages of 30 and 80 years would be reduced by 16% in the progressive scenario and 26% in the aspirational scenario.

Of note, about 83%-85% of the potential mortality reductions would result from scaling up hypertension treatment in the progressive and aspirational scenarios, respectively, with the remaining 15%-17% coming from sodium reduction, the researchers state.

Further, they propose, scaling up BP interventions could reduce CVD inequalities across countries, with low-income and lower-middle-income countries likely experiencing the largest reductions in disease rates and mortality.
 

Implementation barriers

“Health systems in many low- and middle-income countries have not traditionally been set up to succeed in chronic disease management in primary care,” Dr. Watkins noted. For interventions to be successful, he said, “several barriers need to be addressed, including: low population awareness of chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes, which leads to low rates of screening and treatment; high out-of-pocket cost and low availability of medicines for chronic diseases; and need for adherence support and provider incentives for improving quality of chronic disease care in primary care settings.”

“Based on the analysis, achieving the 80-80-80 seems feasible, though actually getting there may be much more complicated. I wonder whether countries have the resources to implement the needed policies,” Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, MD, researcher, department of epidemiology and biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, told this news organization.

“It may be challenging, particularly after COVID-19, which revealed deficiencies in many health care systems, and care for hypertension may have been disturbed,” said Dr. Carrillo-Larco, who is not connected with the analysis.

That said, simplified BP screening approaches could help maximize the number of people screened overall, potentially identifying those with hypertension and raising awareness, he proposed. His team’s recent study showed that such approaches vary from country to country but are generally reliable and can be used effectively for population screening.

In addition, Dr. Carrillo-Larco said, any efforts by clinicians to improve adherence and help patients achieve BP control “would also have positive effects at the population level.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with additional funding by a grant to Dr. Watkins from Resolve to Save Lives. No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

During the pandemic, Native Americans’ life expectancy dropped more than in any other racial or ethnic group. Essentially, they lost nearly 5 years. And they already had the lowest life expectancy of any racial or ethnic group.

Researchers from the University of Colorado-Boulder, the Urban Institute, and Virginia Commonwealth University compared life expectancy changes during 2019-2021 in the United States and 21 peer countries. The study is the first to estimate such changes in non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations. The researchers were taken aback by their findings.

In those 2 years, Americans overall saw a net loss of 2.41 years: Life expectancy declined from 78.85 years in 2019 to 76.98 years in 2020 and 76.44 in 2021. Surprisingly, peer countries not only saw a much smaller loss (0.55 year), but actually had an increase of 0.26 year between 2020 and 2021. The US decline was 8.5 times greater than that of the average decline among 16 other high-income countries during the same period. “It’s like nothing we have seen since World War II,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, one of the coauthors of the study.

The decrease in life expectancy—or, put another way, mortality—was “highly racialized” in the United States, the researchers say. The largest drops in 2020 were among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (4.48 years), Hispanic (3.72 years), non-Hispanic Black (3.20 years), and non-Hispanic Asian (1.83 years) populations. In 2021, the largest decreases were in the non-Hispanic White population. The reasons for the “surprising crossover” in outcomes are not entirely clear, the researchers say, and likely have multiple explanations.

However, the patterns, they note, “reflect a long history of systemic racism” and “inadequacies in how the pandemic was managed in the United States.” In a university news release, study coauthor Ryan Masters, PhD, said, “The US didn’t take COVID seriously to the extent that other countries did, and we paid a horrific price for it, with Black and brown people suffering the most.”

The researchers expected to see a decline among Native Americans, Masters said, because they often lack access to vaccines, quality health care, and transportation. But the magnitude of the drop in life expectancy was “shocking.” He added, “You just don’t see numbers like this in advanced countries in the modern day.”

Noting that the troubling downward trend in life expectancy had been on view even before the pandemic, Masters said, “This isn’t just a COVID problem. There are broader social and economic policies that placed the United States at a disadvantage long before this pandemic. The time to address them is long overdue.”

During the pandemic, Native Americans’ life expectancy dropped more than in any other racial or ethnic group. Essentially, they lost nearly 5 years. And they already had the lowest life expectancy of any racial or ethnic group.

Researchers from the University of Colorado-Boulder, the Urban Institute, and Virginia Commonwealth University compared life expectancy changes during 2019-2021 in the United States and 21 peer countries. The study is the first to estimate such changes in non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations. The researchers were taken aback by their findings.

In those 2 years, Americans overall saw a net loss of 2.41 years: Life expectancy declined from 78.85 years in 2019 to 76.98 years in 2020 and 76.44 in 2021. Surprisingly, peer countries not only saw a much smaller loss (0.55 year), but actually had an increase of 0.26 year between 2020 and 2021. The US decline was 8.5 times greater than that of the average decline among 16 other high-income countries during the same period. “It’s like nothing we have seen since World War II,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, one of the coauthors of the study.

The decrease in life expectancy—or, put another way, mortality—was “highly racialized” in the United States, the researchers say. The largest drops in 2020 were among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (4.48 years), Hispanic (3.72 years), non-Hispanic Black (3.20 years), and non-Hispanic Asian (1.83 years) populations. In 2021, the largest decreases were in the non-Hispanic White population. The reasons for the “surprising crossover” in outcomes are not entirely clear, the researchers say, and likely have multiple explanations.

However, the patterns, they note, “reflect a long history of systemic racism” and “inadequacies in how the pandemic was managed in the United States.” In a university news release, study coauthor Ryan Masters, PhD, said, “The US didn’t take COVID seriously to the extent that other countries did, and we paid a horrific price for it, with Black and brown people suffering the most.”

The researchers expected to see a decline among Native Americans, Masters said, because they often lack access to vaccines, quality health care, and transportation. But the magnitude of the drop in life expectancy was “shocking.” He added, “You just don’t see numbers like this in advanced countries in the modern day.”

Noting that the troubling downward trend in life expectancy had been on view even before the pandemic, Masters said, “This isn’t just a COVID problem. There are broader social and economic policies that placed the United States at a disadvantage long before this pandemic. The time to address them is long overdue.”

During the pandemic, Native Americans’ life expectancy dropped more than in any other racial or ethnic group. Essentially, they lost nearly 5 years. And they already had the lowest life expectancy of any racial or ethnic group.

Researchers from the University of Colorado-Boulder, the Urban Institute, and Virginia Commonwealth University compared life expectancy changes during 2019-2021 in the United States and 21 peer countries. The study is the first to estimate such changes in non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian populations. The researchers were taken aback by their findings.

In those 2 years, Americans overall saw a net loss of 2.41 years: Life expectancy declined from 78.85 years in 2019 to 76.98 years in 2020 and 76.44 in 2021. Surprisingly, peer countries not only saw a much smaller loss (0.55 year), but actually had an increase of 0.26 year between 2020 and 2021. The US decline was 8.5 times greater than that of the average decline among 16 other high-income countries during the same period. “It’s like nothing we have seen since World War II,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, one of the coauthors of the study.

The decrease in life expectancy—or, put another way, mortality—was “highly racialized” in the United States, the researchers say. The largest drops in 2020 were among non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native (4.48 years), Hispanic (3.72 years), non-Hispanic Black (3.20 years), and non-Hispanic Asian (1.83 years) populations. In 2021, the largest decreases were in the non-Hispanic White population. The reasons for the “surprising crossover” in outcomes are not entirely clear, the researchers say, and likely have multiple explanations.

However, the patterns, they note, “reflect a long history of systemic racism” and “inadequacies in how the pandemic was managed in the United States.” In a university news release, study coauthor Ryan Masters, PhD, said, “The US didn’t take COVID seriously to the extent that other countries did, and we paid a horrific price for it, with Black and brown people suffering the most.”

The researchers expected to see a decline among Native Americans, Masters said, because they often lack access to vaccines, quality health care, and transportation. But the magnitude of the drop in life expectancy was “shocking.” He added, “You just don’t see numbers like this in advanced countries in the modern day.”

Noting that the troubling downward trend in life expectancy had been on view even before the pandemic, Masters said, “This isn’t just a COVID problem. There are broader social and economic policies that placed the United States at a disadvantage long before this pandemic. The time to address them is long overdue.”

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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

For the seventh consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the top spot in the annual honor roll of best hospitals, published July 26 by U.S. News & World Report.

The 2022 rankings, which marks the 33rd edition, showcase several methodology changes, including new ratings for ovarian, prostate, and uterine cancer surgeries that “provide patients ... with previously unavailable information to assist them in making a critical health care decision,” a news release from the publication explains.

Additional expanded health equity measures assess “which hospitals provide more care to low-income patients and which have racial disparities in certain surgical outcomes,” said the release. Finally, a new metric called “home time” determines how successfully each hospital helps patients return home.
 

Mayo Clinic remains No. 1

For the 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News compared more than 4,500 medical centers across the country in 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions. Of these, 493 were recognized as Best Regional Hospitals as a result of their overall strong performance.

The list was then narrowed to the top 20 hospitals, outlined in the honor roll below, that deliver “exceptional treatment across multiple areas of care.”

Following Mayo Clinic in the annual ranking’s top spot, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles rises from No. 6 to No. 2, and New York University Langone Hospitals finish third, up from eighth in 2021.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot, down two from 2021, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles tie for fifth place. Rounding out the top 10, in order, are: New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago; Stanford (Calif.) Health Care–Stanford Hospital.

The following hospitals complete the top 20 in the United States:

• 11. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis
• 12. UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco
• 13. Hospitals of the University of Pennsylvania–Penn Presbyterian, Philadelphia
• 14. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston
• 15. Houston Methodist Hospital
• 16. Mount Sinai Hospital, New York
• 17. University of Michigan Health–Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor
• 18. Mayo Clinic–Phoenix
• 19. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.
• 20. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

For the specialty rankings, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, remains No. 1 in cancer care, the Cleveland Clinic is No. 1 in cardiology and heart surgery, and the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York is No. 1 in orthopedics.
 

Top five for cancer

• 1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
• 2. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
• 3. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 4. Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston
• 5. UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

Top five for cardiology and heart surgery

• 1. Cleveland Clinic
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York–Presbyterian Hospital–Columbia and Cornell, New York
• 5. New York University Langone Hospitals

Top five for orthopedics

• 1. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York
• 2. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
• 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles
• 4. New York University Langone Hospitals
• 5. (tie) Rush University Medical Center, Chicago
• 5. (tie) UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles

According to the news release, the procedures and conditions ratings are based entirely on objective patient care measures like survival rates, patient experience, home time, and level of nursing care. The Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.

The full report is available online.

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