Citations

SummaryObjectiveStudies of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) therapy in older adults suggest sex‐specific effects on bone mineral density (BMD) and body composition, but the ability of a single study to reach this conclusion was limited. We evaluated the effects of DHEA on sex hormones, BMD, fat mass and fat‐free mass in older women and men enrolled in four similar clinical trials.DesignPooled analyses of data from four double‐blinded, randomized controlled trials.ParticipantsWomen (n = 295) and men (n = 290) aged 55 years or older who took DHEA or placebo tablet daily for 12 months.MeasurementsTwelve‐month changes in BMD, fat mass, fat‐free mass and serum DHEA sulphate (DHEAS), (17)estradiol, testosterone and insulin‐like growth factor‐1 (IGF‐1).ResultsWomen on DHEA had increases (mean ± SD; all P < 0.001 vs placebo) in DHEAS (231 ± 164 µg/dL), testosterone (18.6 ± 20.9 µg/dL), (17)estradiol (8.7 ± 11.0 pg/mL) and IGF‐1 (25.1 ± 52.3 ng/mL), and men had increases in DHEAS (269.0 ± 177 µg/dL; P < 0.01), (17)estradiol (4.8 ± 12.2 pg/m; P < 0.01) and IGF‐1 (6.3 ± 41.4 ng/mL; P < 0.05). Women on DHEA had increases in lumbar spine (1.0% ± 3.4%) and trochanter (0.5% ± 3.8%) BMD and maintained total hip BMD (0.0% ± 2.8%); men had no BMD benefit and a decrease in fat mass (−0.4 ± 2.6 kg; all P < 0.01 vs placebo).ConclusionsDehydroepiandrosterone therapy may be an effective approach for preserving bone and muscle mass in women. Key questions are (a) the extent to which longer duration DHEA can attenuate the loss of bone and muscle in women, and (b) whether DHEA has a more favourable benefit‐to‐risk profile for women than oestrogen therapy.

Objective Little is known about long‐term metabolic (energy expenditure) adaptation after bariatric surgery. Methods Resting metabolic rate under basal conditions (RMR), total daily energy expenditure (TDEE), and body composition were measured in 25 participants in the Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery‐2. Results Six months after surgery, BMI (±SD) decreased (47 ± 6 kg/m 2 to 37 ± 5 kg/m 2 ), body fat went from 48% ± 6% to 40% ± 6% fat, and fat‐free mass went from 67 ± 9 kg to 60 ± 9 kg. In absolute terms, RMR and TDEE both decreased significantly (1,730 ± 278 kcal/d vs. 1,430 ± 200 kcal/d and 2,879 ± 544 kcal/d vs. 2,369 ± 304 kcal/d), and the achieved energy balance was −1,293 ± 355 kcal/d. Sixteen of these participants underwent repeated measures at ∼24 months; TDEE decreased 6 months postoperatively (2,957 ± 540 kcal/d to 2,423 ± 324 kcal/d; P = 0.0003), but at ∼24 months, TDEE (2,602 ± 471 kcal/d) was not significantly different compared with month 6. The average negative energy balance from baseline to month 24 was −379 ± 131 kcal/d. Conclusions RMR and TDEE fall precipitously in the first 6 months after bariatric surgery, but these adaptive changes were no longer significant after 2 years.

AbstractThe goal of the National Institutes of Health–funded American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 2017 research workshop (RW) “Gastric Bypass: Role of the Gut” was to focus on the exciting research evaluating gut‐derived signals in modulating outcomes after bariatric surgery. Although gastric bypass surgery has undoubted positive effects, the mechanistic basis of improved outcomes cannot be solely explained by caloric restriction. Emerging data suggest that bile acid metabolic pathways, luminal contents, energy balance, gut mucosal integrity, as well as the gut microbiota are significantly modulated after bariatric surgery and may be responsible for the variable outcomes, each of which was rigorously evaluated. The RW served as a timely and novel academic meeting that brought together clinicians and researchers across the scientific spectrum, fostering a unique venue for interdisciplinary collaboration among investigators. It promoted engaging discussion and evolution of new research hypotheses and ideas, driving the development of novel ameliorative, therapeutic, and nonsurgical interventions targeting obesity and its comorbidities. Importantly, a critical evaluation of the current knowledge regarding gut‐modulated signaling after bariatric surgery, potential pitfalls, and lacunae were thoroughly addressed.

OBJECTIVE Recently, 2 surgeon rating websites (Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica) were published to allow the public to compare surgeons through identifying surgeon volume and complication rates. Among neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, only cervical and lumbar spine, hip, and knee procedures were included in this assessment. METHODS The authors examined the methodology of each website to assess potential sources of inaccuracy. Each online tool was queried for reports on neurosurgeons specializing in spine surgery and orthopedic surgeons specializing in spine, hip, or knee surgery. Surgeons were chosen from top-ranked hospitals in the US, as recorded by a national consumer publication ranking system, within the fields of neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery. The results were compared for accuracy and surgeon representation, and the results of the 2 websites were also compared. RESULTS The methodology of each site was found to have opportunities for bias and limited risk adjustment. The end points assessed by each site were actually not complications, but proxies of complication occurrence. A search of 510 surgeons (401 orthopedic surgeons [79%] and 109 neurosurgeons [21%]) showed that only 28% and 56% of surgeons had data represented on Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica, respectively. There was a significantly higher chance of finding surgeon data on ProPublica (p < 0.001). Of the surgeons from top-ranked programs with data available, 17% were quoted to have high complication rates, 13% with lower volume than other surgeons, and 79% had a 3-star out of 5-star rating. There was no significant correlation found between the number of stars a surgeon received on Consumers' Checkbook and his or her adjusted complication rate on ProPublica. CONCLUSIONS Both the Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica websites have significant methodological issues. Neither site assessed complication occurrence, but rather readmissions or prolonged length of stay. Risk adjustment was limited or nonexistent. A substantial number of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons from top-ranked hospitals have no ratings on either site, or have data that suggests they are low-volume surgeons or have higher complication rates. Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica produced different results with little correlation between the 2 websites in how surgeons were graded. Given the significant methodological issues, incomplete data, and lack of appropriate risk stratification of patients, the featured websites may provide erroneous information to the public.