MDedge Cardiology

A prespecified analysis of a large global trial of patients with symptomatic heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction “seals the deal” on the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to manage and improve their symptoms.

The prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial included 5,795 patients with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction who completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) after taking the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin or placebo. The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve known from studies prior to DELIVER that SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve health status, patient symptoms and quality of life among those that are living with heart failure and mildly reduced [HFmrEF] and preserved [HFpEF] ejection fraction,” lead author Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, vice president for research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the St. Luke’s Michael and Marly Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview. “But the picture was incomplete for a number of different reasons, partly because the previous studies were either relatively modest in size, geographically limited, or suggested potential attenuation of these benefits in patients with completely normal ejection fraction.”

Specifically, the study authors noted the EMPEROR-Preserved trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin showed improvement in health status vs. placebo across the range of EF except in those with normal EF of 65% or greater. The PRESERVED-HF trial of dapagliflozin demonstrated a more robust response than EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, but PRESERVED-HF patients were recruited only in the United States and had more debilitating HF symptoms at baseline.

“Because of the results of the DELIVER trial and because of how large, extensive, and inclusive the trial was, it really seals the deal on the value of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The DELIVER analysis found that the effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death and worsening HF were greatest in patients who had the most debilitating symptoms at baseline, measured as KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) as 63 or less, the lowest of three tertiles used in the analysis. At baseline, these patients had the highest rates of CV death or worsening HF than those in the other two tertiles: KCCQ-TSS of 63-84, and greater than 84.

Compared with placebo, treated patients in the lowest KCCQ-TSS quartile had a 30% reduction in risk for the primary composite outcome, which consisted of time to first CV death or HF event (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.84; P < .001). In the second tertile, the relative risk reduction was 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.01; P < .006), and the highest quartile showed no significant difference between treatment and placebo (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P < .62).

“The most important take home message is that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improved patient symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “It improved those symptoms within 1 month and those benefits were sustained out to 8 months.”

DELIVER patients also showed improvement in all other key KCCQ domains across the board, he added. “In addition, dapagliflozin also improved the proportion of patients who had small, moderate, and large improvements in a responder analysis. So really, by every measure that we had, dapagliflozin had a significant beneficial effect.”

The DELIVER results taken collectively with the EMPEROR-Preserved and PRESERVED-HF trials cinch the deal for SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Kosiborod said. “They deliver on the triple goal of care in patients with heart failure. They reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure and they improve patient symptoms, function and quality of life – and they accomplish that across the entire continuum of heart failure regardless of ejection fraction, regardless of whether patients are hospitalized or in an ambulatory setting, regardless of age or background therapies or other comorbidities.”

He added: “It’s a pretty historic development because we haven’t had that before.”

AstraZeneca funded the DELIVER trial. Dr. Kosiborod disclosed financial relationships with Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos and Vifor Pharma.
 

A prespecified analysis of a large global trial of patients with symptomatic heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction “seals the deal” on the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to manage and improve their symptoms.

The prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial included 5,795 patients with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction who completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) after taking the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin or placebo. The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve known from studies prior to DELIVER that SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve health status, patient symptoms and quality of life among those that are living with heart failure and mildly reduced [HFmrEF] and preserved [HFpEF] ejection fraction,” lead author Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, vice president for research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the St. Luke’s Michael and Marly Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview. “But the picture was incomplete for a number of different reasons, partly because the previous studies were either relatively modest in size, geographically limited, or suggested potential attenuation of these benefits in patients with completely normal ejection fraction.”

Specifically, the study authors noted the EMPEROR-Preserved trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin showed improvement in health status vs. placebo across the range of EF except in those with normal EF of 65% or greater. The PRESERVED-HF trial of dapagliflozin demonstrated a more robust response than EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, but PRESERVED-HF patients were recruited only in the United States and had more debilitating HF symptoms at baseline.

“Because of the results of the DELIVER trial and because of how large, extensive, and inclusive the trial was, it really seals the deal on the value of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The DELIVER analysis found that the effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death and worsening HF were greatest in patients who had the most debilitating symptoms at baseline, measured as KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) as 63 or less, the lowest of three tertiles used in the analysis. At baseline, these patients had the highest rates of CV death or worsening HF than those in the other two tertiles: KCCQ-TSS of 63-84, and greater than 84.

Compared with placebo, treated patients in the lowest KCCQ-TSS quartile had a 30% reduction in risk for the primary composite outcome, which consisted of time to first CV death or HF event (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.84; P < .001). In the second tertile, the relative risk reduction was 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.01; P < .006), and the highest quartile showed no significant difference between treatment and placebo (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P < .62).

“The most important take home message is that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improved patient symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “It improved those symptoms within 1 month and those benefits were sustained out to 8 months.”

DELIVER patients also showed improvement in all other key KCCQ domains across the board, he added. “In addition, dapagliflozin also improved the proportion of patients who had small, moderate, and large improvements in a responder analysis. So really, by every measure that we had, dapagliflozin had a significant beneficial effect.”

The DELIVER results taken collectively with the EMPEROR-Preserved and PRESERVED-HF trials cinch the deal for SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Kosiborod said. “They deliver on the triple goal of care in patients with heart failure. They reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure and they improve patient symptoms, function and quality of life – and they accomplish that across the entire continuum of heart failure regardless of ejection fraction, regardless of whether patients are hospitalized or in an ambulatory setting, regardless of age or background therapies or other comorbidities.”

He added: “It’s a pretty historic development because we haven’t had that before.”

AstraZeneca funded the DELIVER trial. Dr. Kosiborod disclosed financial relationships with Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos and Vifor Pharma.
 

A prespecified analysis of a large global trial of patients with symptomatic heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction “seals the deal” on the efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to manage and improve their symptoms.

The prespecified analysis of the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients with Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial included 5,795 patients with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction who completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) after taking the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin or placebo. The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We’ve known from studies prior to DELIVER that SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to improve health status, patient symptoms and quality of life among those that are living with heart failure and mildly reduced [HFmrEF] and preserved [HFpEF] ejection fraction,” lead author Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, vice president for research at Saint Luke’s Health System, and codirector of the St. Luke’s Michael and Marly Haverty Cardiometabolic Center of Excellence at St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview. “But the picture was incomplete for a number of different reasons, partly because the previous studies were either relatively modest in size, geographically limited, or suggested potential attenuation of these benefits in patients with completely normal ejection fraction.”

Specifically, the study authors noted the EMPEROR-Preserved trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin showed improvement in health status vs. placebo across the range of EF except in those with normal EF of 65% or greater. The PRESERVED-HF trial of dapagliflozin demonstrated a more robust response than EMPEROR-Preserved or DELIVER, but PRESERVED-HF patients were recruited only in the United States and had more debilitating HF symptoms at baseline.

“Because of the results of the DELIVER trial and because of how large, extensive, and inclusive the trial was, it really seals the deal on the value of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure,” said Dr. Kosiborod, who is also a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri–Kansas City.

The DELIVER analysis found that the effects of dapagliflozin on reducing cardiovascular death and worsening HF were greatest in patients who had the most debilitating symptoms at baseline, measured as KCCQ total symptom score (TSS) as 63 or less, the lowest of three tertiles used in the analysis. At baseline, these patients had the highest rates of CV death or worsening HF than those in the other two tertiles: KCCQ-TSS of 63-84, and greater than 84.

Compared with placebo, treated patients in the lowest KCCQ-TSS quartile had a 30% reduction in risk for the primary composite outcome, which consisted of time to first CV death or HF event (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.84; P < .001). In the second tertile, the relative risk reduction was 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65-1.01; P < .006), and the highest quartile showed no significant difference between treatment and placebo (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.83-1.37; P < .62).

“The most important take home message is that the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin significantly improved patient symptoms as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire symptom score,” Dr. Kosiborod said. “It improved those symptoms within 1 month and those benefits were sustained out to 8 months.”

DELIVER patients also showed improvement in all other key KCCQ domains across the board, he added. “In addition, dapagliflozin also improved the proportion of patients who had small, moderate, and large improvements in a responder analysis. So really, by every measure that we had, dapagliflozin had a significant beneficial effect.”

The DELIVER results taken collectively with the EMPEROR-Preserved and PRESERVED-HF trials cinch the deal for SGLT2 inhibitors, Dr. Kosiborod said. “They deliver on the triple goal of care in patients with heart failure. They reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and worsening heart failure and they improve patient symptoms, function and quality of life – and they accomplish that across the entire continuum of heart failure regardless of ejection fraction, regardless of whether patients are hospitalized or in an ambulatory setting, regardless of age or background therapies or other comorbidities.”

He added: “It’s a pretty historic development because we haven’t had that before.”

AstraZeneca funded the DELIVER trial. Dr. Kosiborod disclosed financial relationships with Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pharmacosmos and Vifor Pharma.
 

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 13 voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF.

Those who voted in favor of the drug cited the clinical benefit (albeit small) and good safety profile of the drug as well as the unmet need for new treatments.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she voted yes “on the basis of need,” and her personal experience, as well as the data presented, that “up to half of severe heart failure patients are intolerant of guidelines directed medical therapy.”

Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, with Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., who also voted in favor of approval for the drug, cited the “important unmet need,” and said he believes “a path was constructed in which one could go forward safely and with enhanced efficacy.

“It may be a narrow path, but I think it’s a path that would afford a lot of benefit to this high-risk patient population,” said Dr. O’Connor.

Those who voted against approval generally felt the benefit was not large enough and that more data are needed, given this is a first-in-class agent.

Julia B. Lewis, MD, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who voted no, said she was concerned that, despite the large size of the trial, “a more positive effect could not have been found.” She was also concerned that there was no benefit on quality of life or any other secondary outcomes. 

David J. Moliterno, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, who also voted no, felt the benefits were “more singular and that being a modest reduction primarily limited to fewer outpatient visits.” Dr. Moliterno, like many of the committee members who voted no, called for more study.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association 2020 scientific sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a statement, Robert I. Blum, president and CEO of Cytokinetics, said, “We are disappointed there was not a greater consensus amongst committee members relating to the benefit-risk of omecamtiv mecarbil, and we maintain our conviction in the strength of evidence supporting its potential benefit for patients suffering from HFrEF.”

He added that the company plans to engage constructively with the FDA as it completes its review of the application for omecamtiv mecarbil. 

The drug has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of Feb. 28, 2023.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 13 voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF.

Those who voted in favor of the drug cited the clinical benefit (albeit small) and good safety profile of the drug as well as the unmet need for new treatments.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she voted yes “on the basis of need,” and her personal experience, as well as the data presented, that “up to half of severe heart failure patients are intolerant of guidelines directed medical therapy.”

Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, with Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., who also voted in favor of approval for the drug, cited the “important unmet need,” and said he believes “a path was constructed in which one could go forward safely and with enhanced efficacy.

“It may be a narrow path, but I think it’s a path that would afford a lot of benefit to this high-risk patient population,” said Dr. O’Connor.

Those who voted against approval generally felt the benefit was not large enough and that more data are needed, given this is a first-in-class agent.

Julia B. Lewis, MD, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who voted no, said she was concerned that, despite the large size of the trial, “a more positive effect could not have been found.” She was also concerned that there was no benefit on quality of life or any other secondary outcomes. 

David J. Moliterno, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, who also voted no, felt the benefits were “more singular and that being a modest reduction primarily limited to fewer outpatient visits.” Dr. Moliterno, like many of the committee members who voted no, called for more study.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association 2020 scientific sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a statement, Robert I. Blum, president and CEO of Cytokinetics, said, “We are disappointed there was not a greater consensus amongst committee members relating to the benefit-risk of omecamtiv mecarbil, and we maintain our conviction in the strength of evidence supporting its potential benefit for patients suffering from HFrEF.”

He added that the company plans to engage constructively with the FDA as it completes its review of the application for omecamtiv mecarbil. 

The drug has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of Feb. 28, 2023.

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration has recommended against approval of omecamtiv mecarbil (Cytokinetics) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Omecamtiv mecarbil is a first-in-class, selective cardiac myosin activator designed to improve cardiac performance.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 13 voted 8 to 3 (with no abstentions) that the benefits of omecamtiv mecarbil do not outweigh the risks for HFrEF.

Those who voted in favor of the drug cited the clinical benefit (albeit small) and good safety profile of the drug as well as the unmet need for new treatments.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said she voted yes “on the basis of need,” and her personal experience, as well as the data presented, that “up to half of severe heart failure patients are intolerant of guidelines directed medical therapy.”

Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, with Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va., who also voted in favor of approval for the drug, cited the “important unmet need,” and said he believes “a path was constructed in which one could go forward safely and with enhanced efficacy.

“It may be a narrow path, but I think it’s a path that would afford a lot of benefit to this high-risk patient population,” said Dr. O’Connor.

Those who voted against approval generally felt the benefit was not large enough and that more data are needed, given this is a first-in-class agent.

Julia B. Lewis, MD, Vanderbilt Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who voted no, said she was concerned that, despite the large size of the trial, “a more positive effect could not have been found.” She was also concerned that there was no benefit on quality of life or any other secondary outcomes. 

David J. Moliterno, MD, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, who also voted no, felt the benefits were “more singular and that being a modest reduction primarily limited to fewer outpatient visits.” Dr. Moliterno, like many of the committee members who voted no, called for more study.

The committee’s decision was based on results from the phase 3 GALACTIC-HF trial, which enrolled 8,256 patients with HFrEF who were at risk of hospitalization and death, despite standard-of-care therapy.

As previously reported by this news organization, omecamtiv mecarbil produced a positive result for the study’s primary endpoint, with a 2.1% absolute reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular (CV) death, first HF hospitalization, or first urgent visit for HF, compared with placebo during a median follow-up of about 22 months.

This represented an 8% relative risk reduction and broke down as a 0.6% absolute drop in CV death, compared with placebo, a 0.7% cut in HF hospitalization, and a 0.8% drop in urgent outpatient HF visits.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association 2020 scientific sessions and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In a statement, Robert I. Blum, president and CEO of Cytokinetics, said, “We are disappointed there was not a greater consensus amongst committee members relating to the benefit-risk of omecamtiv mecarbil, and we maintain our conviction in the strength of evidence supporting its potential benefit for patients suffering from HFrEF.”

He added that the company plans to engage constructively with the FDA as it completes its review of the application for omecamtiv mecarbil. 

The drug has a Prescription Drug User Fee Act target date of Feb. 28, 2023.

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

Maybe the cow was late for its appointment

It’s been a long day running the front desk at your doctor’s office. People calling in prescriptions, a million appointments, you’ve been running yourself ragged keeping things together. Finally, it’s almost closing time. The last patient of the day has just checked out and you turn back to the waiting room, expecting to see it blessedly empty.

Instead, a 650-pound cow is staring at you.

“I’m sorry, sir or madam, we’re about to close.”

Moo.
 

tilo/Thinkstock

We can see that decision in your eyes

The cliché that eyes are the windows to the soul doesn’t tell the whole story about how telling eyes really are. It’s all about how they move. In a recent study, researchers determined that a type of eye movement known as a saccade reveals your choice before you even decide.

pxfuel

Saccades involve the eyes jumping from one fixation point to another, senior author Alaa Ahmed of the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained in a statement from the university. Saccade vigor was the key in how aligned the type of decisions were made by the 22 study participants.

In the study, subjects walked on a treadmill at varied inclines for a period of time. Then they sat in front of a monitor and a high-speed camera that tracked their eye movements as the monitor presented them with a series of exercise options. The participants had only 4 seconds to choose between them.

After they made their choices, participants went back on the treadmill to perform the exercises they had chosen. The researchers found that participants’ eyes jumped between the options slowly then faster to the option they eventually picked. The more impulsive decision-makers also tended to move their eyes even more rapidly before slowing down after a decision was made, making it pretty conclusive that the eyes were revealing their choices.

The way your eyes shift gives you away without saying a thing. Might be wise, then, to wear sunglasses to your next poker tournament.
 

Let them eat soap

Okay, we admit it: LOTME spends a lot of time in the bathroom. Today, though, we’re interested in the sinks. Specifically, the P-traps under the sinks. You know, the curvy bit that keeps sewer gas from wafting back into the room?

PxHere

Well, researchers from the University of Reading (England) recently found some fungi while examining a bunch of sinks on the university’s Whiteknights campus. “It isn’t a big surprise to find fungi in a warm, wet environment. But sinks and P-traps have thus far been overlooked as potential reservoirs of these microorganisms,” they said in a written statement.

Samples collected from 289 P-traps contained “a very similar community of yeasts and molds, showing that sinks in use in public environments share a role as reservoirs of fungal organisms,” they noted.

The fungi living in the traps survived conditions with high temperatures, low pH, and little in the way of nutrients. So what were they eating? Some varieties, they said, “use detergents, found in soap, as a source of carbon-rich food.” We’ll repeat that last part: They used the soap as food.

WARNING: Rant Ahead.

There are a lot of cleaning products for sale that say they will make your home safe by killing 99.9% of germs and bacteria. Not fungi, exactly, but we’re still talking microorganisms. Molds, bacteria, and viruses are all stuff that can infect humans and make them sick.

So you kill 99.9% of them. Great, but that leaves 0.1% that you just made angry. And what do they do next? They learn to eat soap. Then University of Reading investigators find out that all the extra hand washing going on during the COVID-19 pandemic was “clogging up sinks with nasty disease-causing bacteria.”

These are microorganisms we’re talking about people. They’ve been at this for a billion years! Rats can’t beat them, cockroaches won’t stop them – Earth’s ultimate survivors are powerless against the invisible horde.

We’re doomed.

Maybe the cow was late for its appointment

It’s been a long day running the front desk at your doctor’s office. People calling in prescriptions, a million appointments, you’ve been running yourself ragged keeping things together. Finally, it’s almost closing time. The last patient of the day has just checked out and you turn back to the waiting room, expecting to see it blessedly empty.

Instead, a 650-pound cow is staring at you.

“I’m sorry, sir or madam, we’re about to close.”

Moo.
 

tilo/Thinkstock

We can see that decision in your eyes

The cliché that eyes are the windows to the soul doesn’t tell the whole story about how telling eyes really are. It’s all about how they move. In a recent study, researchers determined that a type of eye movement known as a saccade reveals your choice before you even decide.

pxfuel

Saccades involve the eyes jumping from one fixation point to another, senior author Alaa Ahmed of the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained in a statement from the university. Saccade vigor was the key in how aligned the type of decisions were made by the 22 study participants.

In the study, subjects walked on a treadmill at varied inclines for a period of time. Then they sat in front of a monitor and a high-speed camera that tracked their eye movements as the monitor presented them with a series of exercise options. The participants had only 4 seconds to choose between them.

After they made their choices, participants went back on the treadmill to perform the exercises they had chosen. The researchers found that participants’ eyes jumped between the options slowly then faster to the option they eventually picked. The more impulsive decision-makers also tended to move their eyes even more rapidly before slowing down after a decision was made, making it pretty conclusive that the eyes were revealing their choices.

The way your eyes shift gives you away without saying a thing. Might be wise, then, to wear sunglasses to your next poker tournament.
 

Let them eat soap

Okay, we admit it: LOTME spends a lot of time in the bathroom. Today, though, we’re interested in the sinks. Specifically, the P-traps under the sinks. You know, the curvy bit that keeps sewer gas from wafting back into the room?

PxHere

Well, researchers from the University of Reading (England) recently found some fungi while examining a bunch of sinks on the university’s Whiteknights campus. “It isn’t a big surprise to find fungi in a warm, wet environment. But sinks and P-traps have thus far been overlooked as potential reservoirs of these microorganisms,” they said in a written statement.

Samples collected from 289 P-traps contained “a very similar community of yeasts and molds, showing that sinks in use in public environments share a role as reservoirs of fungal organisms,” they noted.

The fungi living in the traps survived conditions with high temperatures, low pH, and little in the way of nutrients. So what were they eating? Some varieties, they said, “use detergents, found in soap, as a source of carbon-rich food.” We’ll repeat that last part: They used the soap as food.

WARNING: Rant Ahead.

There are a lot of cleaning products for sale that say they will make your home safe by killing 99.9% of germs and bacteria. Not fungi, exactly, but we’re still talking microorganisms. Molds, bacteria, and viruses are all stuff that can infect humans and make them sick.

So you kill 99.9% of them. Great, but that leaves 0.1% that you just made angry. And what do they do next? They learn to eat soap. Then University of Reading investigators find out that all the extra hand washing going on during the COVID-19 pandemic was “clogging up sinks with nasty disease-causing bacteria.”

These are microorganisms we’re talking about people. They’ve been at this for a billion years! Rats can’t beat them, cockroaches won’t stop them – Earth’s ultimate survivors are powerless against the invisible horde.

We’re doomed.

Maybe the cow was late for its appointment

It’s been a long day running the front desk at your doctor’s office. People calling in prescriptions, a million appointments, you’ve been running yourself ragged keeping things together. Finally, it’s almost closing time. The last patient of the day has just checked out and you turn back to the waiting room, expecting to see it blessedly empty.

Instead, a 650-pound cow is staring at you.

“I’m sorry, sir or madam, we’re about to close.”

Moo.
 

tilo/Thinkstock

We can see that decision in your eyes

The cliché that eyes are the windows to the soul doesn’t tell the whole story about how telling eyes really are. It’s all about how they move. In a recent study, researchers determined that a type of eye movement known as a saccade reveals your choice before you even decide.

pxfuel

Saccades involve the eyes jumping from one fixation point to another, senior author Alaa Ahmed of the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained in a statement from the university. Saccade vigor was the key in how aligned the type of decisions were made by the 22 study participants.

In the study, subjects walked on a treadmill at varied inclines for a period of time. Then they sat in front of a monitor and a high-speed camera that tracked their eye movements as the monitor presented them with a series of exercise options. The participants had only 4 seconds to choose between them.

After they made their choices, participants went back on the treadmill to perform the exercises they had chosen. The researchers found that participants’ eyes jumped between the options slowly then faster to the option they eventually picked. The more impulsive decision-makers also tended to move their eyes even more rapidly before slowing down after a decision was made, making it pretty conclusive that the eyes were revealing their choices.

The way your eyes shift gives you away without saying a thing. Might be wise, then, to wear sunglasses to your next poker tournament.
 

Let them eat soap

Okay, we admit it: LOTME spends a lot of time in the bathroom. Today, though, we’re interested in the sinks. Specifically, the P-traps under the sinks. You know, the curvy bit that keeps sewer gas from wafting back into the room?

PxHere

Well, researchers from the University of Reading (England) recently found some fungi while examining a bunch of sinks on the university’s Whiteknights campus. “It isn’t a big surprise to find fungi in a warm, wet environment. But sinks and P-traps have thus far been overlooked as potential reservoirs of these microorganisms,” they said in a written statement.

Samples collected from 289 P-traps contained “a very similar community of yeasts and molds, showing that sinks in use in public environments share a role as reservoirs of fungal organisms,” they noted.

The fungi living in the traps survived conditions with high temperatures, low pH, and little in the way of nutrients. So what were they eating? Some varieties, they said, “use detergents, found in soap, as a source of carbon-rich food.” We’ll repeat that last part: They used the soap as food.

WARNING: Rant Ahead.

There are a lot of cleaning products for sale that say they will make your home safe by killing 99.9% of germs and bacteria. Not fungi, exactly, but we’re still talking microorganisms. Molds, bacteria, and viruses are all stuff that can infect humans and make them sick.

So you kill 99.9% of them. Great, but that leaves 0.1% that you just made angry. And what do they do next? They learn to eat soap. Then University of Reading investigators find out that all the extra hand washing going on during the COVID-19 pandemic was “clogging up sinks with nasty disease-causing bacteria.”

These are microorganisms we’re talking about people. They’ve been at this for a billion years! Rats can’t beat them, cockroaches won’t stop them – Earth’s ultimate survivors are powerless against the invisible horde.

We’re doomed.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Drew Ramsey, MD: Welcome back, everyone. I’m Dr. Drew Ramsey. I’m on the editorial board with Medscape Psychiatry and I’m an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. We have a special guest today.

I’m here with nutritionist Jessica Bayes, who’s at the University of Technology Sydney, and she’s the lead author of the AMMEND trial. [Editor’s note: Since completing her PhD, Bayes is now at Southern Cross University.] The AMMEND trial is our most recent trial in nutritional psychiatry, finding that giving or helping young men eat a Mediterranean diet can be helpful in the treatment of depression.

Jessica, welcome to Medscape.

Jessica Bayes, PhD: Thank you for having me.

The AMMEND Trial

Dr. Ramsey: Thank you for coming on board and helping all of us as clinicians understand some of your research and some of what is suggested by your research – that young men can change their diet and it helped their depression. Tell us a little bit about the AMMEND trial.

Dr. Bayes: The AMMEND trial was a 12-week randomized controlled trial in young men, 18-25 years old, who had diagnosed moderate to severe clinical depression. They had a poor baseline diet and we got them to eat a healthy Mediterranean diet, which improved their symptoms of depression.

Dr. Ramsey: It was a remarkable trial. Jessica, if I recall, you helped individuals improve the Mediterranean dietary pattern score by 8 points on a 14-point scale. That led to a 20-point reduction in their Beck Depression Inventory. Tell us what that looked like on the ground.

Dr. Bayes: It’s a huge improvement. Obviously, they were feeling much better in the end in terms of their depressive symptoms, but we also measured their energy, sleep, and quality of life. Many of them at the end were at a score cutoff that suggests no depression or in remission.

Dr. Ramsey: There were 72 people in your total trial, so 36% in your intervention arm went into full remission.

Dr. Bayes: Which is just amazing.

Dr. Ramsey: It also follows up the SMILES trial, which was a little bit of a different trial. You had two nutritional counseling sessions and the SMILES trial had seven, but in the SMILES trial, 32.3% of the patients went into full remission when they adopted a Mediterranean-style diet.

Jessica, what is the secret that you and your team know? I think many clinicians, especially clinicians who are parents and have teens, are kind of shaking their heads in disbelief. They’ve been telling their kids to eat healthy. What do you guys know about how to help young men change their diet?

How to Aid Adherence to Mediterranean Diet

Dr. Bayes: Prior to starting this, when I would say this idea to people, everyone would say, “Great idea. There’s no way you’re going to get depressed young men to change their diet. Not going to happen.” We went to them and we asked them. We said, “We’re going to do this study. What do you want from us? What resources would you need? How many appointments would you like? What’s too little or too many?”

We really got their feedback on board when we designed the study, and that obviously paid off. We had a personalized approach and we met them where they were at. We gave them the skills, resources, recipes, meal ideas – all those things – so we could really set them up to succeed.

Dr. Ramsey: You were telling me earlier about a few of the dietary changes that you felt made a big difference for these young men. What were those?

Dr. Bayes: Increasing the vegetables, olive oil, and legumes are probably the big ones that most of them were really not doing beforehand. They were really able to take that on board and make significant improvements in those areas.

Dr. Ramsey: These are really some of the top food categories in nutritional psychiatry as we think about how we help our efforts to improve mental health by thinking about nutrition, nutritional quality, and nutritional density. Certainly, those food categories – nuts and legumes, plants, and olive oil – are really what help get us there.

You also gave the students a food hamper. If you were going to be in charge of mental health in Australia and America and you got to give every college freshman a little box with a note, what would be in that box?

Dr. Bayes: I’d want to put everything in that box! It would be full of brightly colored fruits and vegetables, different nuts and seeds, and legumes. It would be full of recipes and ideas of how to cook things and how to prepare really delicious things. It would be full of different herbs and spices and all of those things to get people really excited about food.

Dr. Ramsey: Did the young men pick up on your enthusiasm and excitement around food? Did they begin to adopt some of that, shifting their view of how they saw the food and how they saw that it is related to their depression?

Dr. Bayes: Hopefully. I do think energy is infectious. I’m sure that played a role somewhat, but trying to get them excited about food can be really quite daunting, thinking, I’ve got to change my entire diet and I’ve got to learn to cook and go out and buy groceries. I don’t even know what to do with a piece of salmon. Trying to get them curious, interested, and just reminding them that it’s not all-or-nothing. Make small changes, give it a go, and have fun.

Dr. Ramsey: You also have a unique aspect of your research that you’re interested in male mental health, and that’s not something that’s been widely researched. Can you tell us a little bit about what these men were like in terms of coming into your trial as depressed young men?

Dr. Bayes: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health was at the forefront of many people’s minds. They joined the study saying, “I’ve never seen anything like this before. I’ve never seen myself represented in research. I wanted to contribute. I want to add to that conversation because I feel like we are overlooked.”

Dr. Ramsey: I love hearing this notion that maybe young men aren’t quite who we think they are. They are wanting to be seen around their mental health. They can learn to use olive oil and to cook, and they can engage in mental health interventions that work. We just need to ask, give them some food, encourage them, and it makes a big difference.

Jessica Bayes, thank you so much for joining us and sharing some of your research. Everyone, it’s the AMMEND trial. We will drop a link to the trial below so you can take a peek and tell us what you think.

Please, in the comments, let us know what you think about this notion of helping young men with depression through nutritional interventions. Take a peek at the great work that Jessica and Professor Sibbritt from the University of Technology Sydney have published and put out into the scientific literature for us all.

Thanks so much, Jessica. I look forward to seeing you soon.

Dr. Bayes: Thank you.

Dr. Ramsey is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for InterContinental Hotels Group; National Kale Day 501(c)3. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Sharecare. Dr. Bayes is a postdoctoral research fellow; clinical nutritionist, Southern Cross University, National Center for Naturopathic Medicine, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received research grant from Endeavour College. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Drew Ramsey, MD: Welcome back, everyone. I’m Dr. Drew Ramsey. I’m on the editorial board with Medscape Psychiatry and I’m an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. We have a special guest today.

I’m here with nutritionist Jessica Bayes, who’s at the University of Technology Sydney, and she’s the lead author of the AMMEND trial. [Editor’s note: Since completing her PhD, Bayes is now at Southern Cross University.] The AMMEND trial is our most recent trial in nutritional psychiatry, finding that giving or helping young men eat a Mediterranean diet can be helpful in the treatment of depression.

Jessica, welcome to Medscape.

Jessica Bayes, PhD: Thank you for having me.

The AMMEND Trial

Dr. Ramsey: Thank you for coming on board and helping all of us as clinicians understand some of your research and some of what is suggested by your research – that young men can change their diet and it helped their depression. Tell us a little bit about the AMMEND trial.

Dr. Bayes: The AMMEND trial was a 12-week randomized controlled trial in young men, 18-25 years old, who had diagnosed moderate to severe clinical depression. They had a poor baseline diet and we got them to eat a healthy Mediterranean diet, which improved their symptoms of depression.

Dr. Ramsey: It was a remarkable trial. Jessica, if I recall, you helped individuals improve the Mediterranean dietary pattern score by 8 points on a 14-point scale. That led to a 20-point reduction in their Beck Depression Inventory. Tell us what that looked like on the ground.

Dr. Bayes: It’s a huge improvement. Obviously, they were feeling much better in the end in terms of their depressive symptoms, but we also measured their energy, sleep, and quality of life. Many of them at the end were at a score cutoff that suggests no depression or in remission.

Dr. Ramsey: There were 72 people in your total trial, so 36% in your intervention arm went into full remission.

Dr. Bayes: Which is just amazing.

Dr. Ramsey: It also follows up the SMILES trial, which was a little bit of a different trial. You had two nutritional counseling sessions and the SMILES trial had seven, but in the SMILES trial, 32.3% of the patients went into full remission when they adopted a Mediterranean-style diet.

Jessica, what is the secret that you and your team know? I think many clinicians, especially clinicians who are parents and have teens, are kind of shaking their heads in disbelief. They’ve been telling their kids to eat healthy. What do you guys know about how to help young men change their diet?

How to Aid Adherence to Mediterranean Diet

Dr. Bayes: Prior to starting this, when I would say this idea to people, everyone would say, “Great idea. There’s no way you’re going to get depressed young men to change their diet. Not going to happen.” We went to them and we asked them. We said, “We’re going to do this study. What do you want from us? What resources would you need? How many appointments would you like? What’s too little or too many?”

We really got their feedback on board when we designed the study, and that obviously paid off. We had a personalized approach and we met them where they were at. We gave them the skills, resources, recipes, meal ideas – all those things – so we could really set them up to succeed.

Dr. Ramsey: You were telling me earlier about a few of the dietary changes that you felt made a big difference for these young men. What were those?

Dr. Bayes: Increasing the vegetables, olive oil, and legumes are probably the big ones that most of them were really not doing beforehand. They were really able to take that on board and make significant improvements in those areas.

Dr. Ramsey: These are really some of the top food categories in nutritional psychiatry as we think about how we help our efforts to improve mental health by thinking about nutrition, nutritional quality, and nutritional density. Certainly, those food categories – nuts and legumes, plants, and olive oil – are really what help get us there.

You also gave the students a food hamper. If you were going to be in charge of mental health in Australia and America and you got to give every college freshman a little box with a note, what would be in that box?

Dr. Bayes: I’d want to put everything in that box! It would be full of brightly colored fruits and vegetables, different nuts and seeds, and legumes. It would be full of recipes and ideas of how to cook things and how to prepare really delicious things. It would be full of different herbs and spices and all of those things to get people really excited about food.

Dr. Ramsey: Did the young men pick up on your enthusiasm and excitement around food? Did they begin to adopt some of that, shifting their view of how they saw the food and how they saw that it is related to their depression?

Dr. Bayes: Hopefully. I do think energy is infectious. I’m sure that played a role somewhat, but trying to get them excited about food can be really quite daunting, thinking, I’ve got to change my entire diet and I’ve got to learn to cook and go out and buy groceries. I don’t even know what to do with a piece of salmon. Trying to get them curious, interested, and just reminding them that it’s not all-or-nothing. Make small changes, give it a go, and have fun.

Dr. Ramsey: You also have a unique aspect of your research that you’re interested in male mental health, and that’s not something that’s been widely researched. Can you tell us a little bit about what these men were like in terms of coming into your trial as depressed young men?

Dr. Bayes: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health was at the forefront of many people’s minds. They joined the study saying, “I’ve never seen anything like this before. I’ve never seen myself represented in research. I wanted to contribute. I want to add to that conversation because I feel like we are overlooked.”

Dr. Ramsey: I love hearing this notion that maybe young men aren’t quite who we think they are. They are wanting to be seen around their mental health. They can learn to use olive oil and to cook, and they can engage in mental health interventions that work. We just need to ask, give them some food, encourage them, and it makes a big difference.

Jessica Bayes, thank you so much for joining us and sharing some of your research. Everyone, it’s the AMMEND trial. We will drop a link to the trial below so you can take a peek and tell us what you think.

Please, in the comments, let us know what you think about this notion of helping young men with depression through nutritional interventions. Take a peek at the great work that Jessica and Professor Sibbritt from the University of Technology Sydney have published and put out into the scientific literature for us all.

Thanks so much, Jessica. I look forward to seeing you soon.

Dr. Bayes: Thank you.

Dr. Ramsey is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for InterContinental Hotels Group; National Kale Day 501(c)3. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Sharecare. Dr. Bayes is a postdoctoral research fellow; clinical nutritionist, Southern Cross University, National Center for Naturopathic Medicine, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received research grant from Endeavour College. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Drew Ramsey, MD: Welcome back, everyone. I’m Dr. Drew Ramsey. I’m on the editorial board with Medscape Psychiatry and I’m an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. We have a special guest today.

I’m here with nutritionist Jessica Bayes, who’s at the University of Technology Sydney, and she’s the lead author of the AMMEND trial. [Editor’s note: Since completing her PhD, Bayes is now at Southern Cross University.] The AMMEND trial is our most recent trial in nutritional psychiatry, finding that giving or helping young men eat a Mediterranean diet can be helpful in the treatment of depression.

Jessica, welcome to Medscape.

Jessica Bayes, PhD: Thank you for having me.

The AMMEND Trial

Dr. Ramsey: Thank you for coming on board and helping all of us as clinicians understand some of your research and some of what is suggested by your research – that young men can change their diet and it helped their depression. Tell us a little bit about the AMMEND trial.

Dr. Bayes: The AMMEND trial was a 12-week randomized controlled trial in young men, 18-25 years old, who had diagnosed moderate to severe clinical depression. They had a poor baseline diet and we got them to eat a healthy Mediterranean diet, which improved their symptoms of depression.

Dr. Ramsey: It was a remarkable trial. Jessica, if I recall, you helped individuals improve the Mediterranean dietary pattern score by 8 points on a 14-point scale. That led to a 20-point reduction in their Beck Depression Inventory. Tell us what that looked like on the ground.

Dr. Bayes: It’s a huge improvement. Obviously, they were feeling much better in the end in terms of their depressive symptoms, but we also measured their energy, sleep, and quality of life. Many of them at the end were at a score cutoff that suggests no depression or in remission.

Dr. Ramsey: There were 72 people in your total trial, so 36% in your intervention arm went into full remission.

Dr. Bayes: Which is just amazing.

Dr. Ramsey: It also follows up the SMILES trial, which was a little bit of a different trial. You had two nutritional counseling sessions and the SMILES trial had seven, but in the SMILES trial, 32.3% of the patients went into full remission when they adopted a Mediterranean-style diet.

Jessica, what is the secret that you and your team know? I think many clinicians, especially clinicians who are parents and have teens, are kind of shaking their heads in disbelief. They’ve been telling their kids to eat healthy. What do you guys know about how to help young men change their diet?

How to Aid Adherence to Mediterranean Diet

Dr. Bayes: Prior to starting this, when I would say this idea to people, everyone would say, “Great idea. There’s no way you’re going to get depressed young men to change their diet. Not going to happen.” We went to them and we asked them. We said, “We’re going to do this study. What do you want from us? What resources would you need? How many appointments would you like? What’s too little or too many?”

We really got their feedback on board when we designed the study, and that obviously paid off. We had a personalized approach and we met them where they were at. We gave them the skills, resources, recipes, meal ideas – all those things – so we could really set them up to succeed.

Dr. Ramsey: You were telling me earlier about a few of the dietary changes that you felt made a big difference for these young men. What were those?

Dr. Bayes: Increasing the vegetables, olive oil, and legumes are probably the big ones that most of them were really not doing beforehand. They were really able to take that on board and make significant improvements in those areas.

Dr. Ramsey: These are really some of the top food categories in nutritional psychiatry as we think about how we help our efforts to improve mental health by thinking about nutrition, nutritional quality, and nutritional density. Certainly, those food categories – nuts and legumes, plants, and olive oil – are really what help get us there.

You also gave the students a food hamper. If you were going to be in charge of mental health in Australia and America and you got to give every college freshman a little box with a note, what would be in that box?

Dr. Bayes: I’d want to put everything in that box! It would be full of brightly colored fruits and vegetables, different nuts and seeds, and legumes. It would be full of recipes and ideas of how to cook things and how to prepare really delicious things. It would be full of different herbs and spices and all of those things to get people really excited about food.

Dr. Ramsey: Did the young men pick up on your enthusiasm and excitement around food? Did they begin to adopt some of that, shifting their view of how they saw the food and how they saw that it is related to their depression?

Dr. Bayes: Hopefully. I do think energy is infectious. I’m sure that played a role somewhat, but trying to get them excited about food can be really quite daunting, thinking, I’ve got to change my entire diet and I’ve got to learn to cook and go out and buy groceries. I don’t even know what to do with a piece of salmon. Trying to get them curious, interested, and just reminding them that it’s not all-or-nothing. Make small changes, give it a go, and have fun.

Dr. Ramsey: You also have a unique aspect of your research that you’re interested in male mental health, and that’s not something that’s been widely researched. Can you tell us a little bit about what these men were like in terms of coming into your trial as depressed young men?

Dr. Bayes: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health was at the forefront of many people’s minds. They joined the study saying, “I’ve never seen anything like this before. I’ve never seen myself represented in research. I wanted to contribute. I want to add to that conversation because I feel like we are overlooked.”

Dr. Ramsey: I love hearing this notion that maybe young men aren’t quite who we think they are. They are wanting to be seen around their mental health. They can learn to use olive oil and to cook, and they can engage in mental health interventions that work. We just need to ask, give them some food, encourage them, and it makes a big difference.

Jessica Bayes, thank you so much for joining us and sharing some of your research. Everyone, it’s the AMMEND trial. We will drop a link to the trial below so you can take a peek and tell us what you think.

Please, in the comments, let us know what you think about this notion of helping young men with depression through nutritional interventions. Take a peek at the great work that Jessica and Professor Sibbritt from the University of Technology Sydney have published and put out into the scientific literature for us all.

Thanks so much, Jessica. I look forward to seeing you soon.

Dr. Bayes: Thank you.

Dr. Ramsey is assistant clinical professor, department of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for InterContinental Hotels Group; National Kale Day 501(c)3. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Sharecare. Dr. Bayes is a postdoctoral research fellow; clinical nutritionist, Southern Cross University, National Center for Naturopathic Medicine, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. She has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received research grant from Endeavour College. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

“Everyone said private practice is dying,” said Omar Maniya, MD, an emergency physician who left his hospital job for family practice in New Jersey. “But I think it could be one of the best models we have to advance our health care system and prevent burnout – and bring joy back to the practice of medicine.”

In 2021, the American Medical Association found that, for the first time, less than half of all physicians work in private practice. But employment doesn’t necessarily mean happiness. In the Medscape “Employed Physicians: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy” ” report, more than 1,350 U.S. physicians employed by a health care organization, hospital, large group practice, or other medical group were surveyedabout their work. As the subtitle suggests, many are torn.

In the survey, employed doctors cited three main downsides to the lifestyle: They have less autonomy, more corporate rules than they’d like, and lower earning potential. Nearly one-third say they’re unhappy about their work-life balance, too, which raises the risk for burnout.

Some physicians find that employment has more cons than pros and turn to private practice instead.
 

A system skewed toward employment

In the mid-1990s, when James Milford, MD, completed his residency, going straight into private practice was the norm. The family physician bucked that trend by joining a large regional medical center in Wisconsin. He spent the next 20+ years working to establish a network of medical clinics.

“It was very satisfying,” Dr. Milford said. “When I started, I had a lot of input, a lot of control.”

Since then, the pendulum has been swinging toward employment. Brieanna Seefeldt, DO, a family physician outside Denver, completed her residency in 2012.

“I told the recruiter I wanted my own practice,” Dr. Seefeldt said, “They said if you’re not independently wealthy, there’s no way.”

Sonal G. Patel, MD, a pediatric neurologist in Bethesda, finished her residency the same year as Dr. Seefeldt. Dr. Patel never even considered private practice.

“I always thought I would have a certain amount of clinic time where I have my regular patients,” she said, “but I’d also be doing hospital rounds and reading EEG studies at the hospital.”

For Dr. Maniya, who completed his residency in 2021, the choice was simple. Growing up, he watched his immigrant parents, both doctors in private practice, struggle to keep up.

“I opted for a big, sophisticated health system,” he said. “I thought we’d be pushing the envelope of what was possible in medicine.”
 

Becoming disillusioned with employment

All four of these physicians are now in private practice and are much happier.

Within a few years of starting her job, Dr. Seefeldt was one of the top producers in her area but felt tremendous pressure to see more and more patients. The last straw came after an unpaid maternity leave.

“They told me I owed them for my maternity leave, for lack of productivity,” she said. “I was in practice for only 4 years, but already feeling the effects of burnout.”

Dr. Patel only lasted 2 years before realizing employment didn’t suit her.

“There was an excessive amount of hospital calls,” she said. “And there were bureaucratic issues that made it very difficult to practice the way I thought my practice would be.”

It took just 18 months for Dr. Maniya’s light-bulb moment. He was working at a hospital when COVID-19 hit.

“At my big health care system, it took 9 months to come up with a way to get COVID swabs for free,” he said. “At the same time, I was helping out the family business, a private practice. It took me two calls and 48 hours to get free swabs for not just the practice, not just our patients, but the entire city of Hamilton, New Jersey.”

Milford lasted the longest as an employee – nearly 25 years. The end came after a healthcare company with hospitals in 30 states bought out the medical center.

“My control gradually eroded,” he said. “It got to the point where I had no input regarding things like employees or processes we wanted to improve.”
 

Making the leap to private practice

Private practice can take different forms.

Dr. Seefeldt opted for direct primary care, a model in which her patients pay a set monthly fee for care whenever needed. Her practice doesn’t take any insurance besides Medicaid.

“Direct primary care is about working directly with the patient and cost-conscious, transparent care,” she said. “And I don’t have to deal with insurance.”

For Dr. Patel, working with an accountable care organization made the transition easier. She owns her practice solo but works with a company called Privia for administrative needs. Privia sent a consultant to set up her office in the company’s electronic medical record. Things were up and running within the first week.

Dr. Maniya joined his mother’s practice, easing his way in over 18 months.

And then there’s what Milford did, building a private practice from the ground up.

“We did a lot of Googling, a lot of meeting with accountants, meeting with small business development from the state of Wisconsin,” he said. “We asked people that were in business, ‘What are the things businesses fail on? Not medical practices, but businesses.’” All that research helped him launch successfully.
 

Making the dollars and cents add up

Moving from employment into private practice takes time, effort, and of course, money. How much of each varies depending on where you live, your specialty, whether you choose to rent or buy office space, staffing needs, and other factors.

Dr. Seefeldt, Dr. Patel, Dr. Milford, and Dr. Maniya illustrate the range.

• Dr. Seefeldt got a home equity loan of $50,000 to cover startup costs – and paid it back within 6 months.
• Purchasing EEG equipment added to Dr. Patel’s budget; she spent $130,000 of her own money to launch her practice in a temporary office and took out a $150,000 loan to finance the buildout of her final space. It took her 3 years to pay it back.
• When Dr. Milford left employment, he borrowed the buildout and startup costs for his practice from his father, a retired surgeon, to the tune of $500,000.
• Dr. Maniya assumed the largest risk. When he took over the family practice, he borrowed $1.5 million to modernize and build a new office. The practice has now quintupled in size. “It’s going great,” he said. “One of our questions is, should we pay back the loan at a faster pace rather than make the minimum payments?”

Several years in, Dr. Patel reports she’s easily making three to four times as much as she would have at a hospital. However, Dr. Maniya’s guaranteed compensation is 10% less than his old job.

“But as a partner in a private practice, if it succeeds, it could be 100%-150% more in a good year,” he said. On the flip side, if the practice runs into financial trouble, so does he. “Does the risk keep me up at night, give me heartburn? You betcha.”

Dr. Milford and Dr. Seefeldt have both chosen to take less compensation than they could, opting to reinvest in and nurture their practices.

“I love it,” said Dr. Milford. “I joke that I have half as much in my pocketbook, twice as much in my heart. But it’s not really half as much, 5 years in. If I weren’t growing the business, I’d be making more than before.”
 

Private practice is not without challenges

Being the big cheese does have drawbacks. In the current climate, staffing is a persistent issue for doctors in private practice – both maintaining a full staff and managing their employees.

And without the backing of a large corporation, doctors are sometimes called on to do less than pleasant tasks.

“If the toilet gets clogged and the plumber can’t come for a few hours, the patients still need a bathroom,” Dr. Maniya said. “I’ll go in with my $400 shoes and snake the toilet.”

Dr. Milford pointed out that when the buck stops with you, small mistakes can have enormous ramifications. “But with the bad comes the great potential for good. You have the ability to positively affect patients and healthcare, and to make a difference for people. It creates great personal satisfaction.”
 

Is running your own practice all it’s cracked up to be?

If it’s not yet apparent, all four doctors highly recommend moving from employment to private practice when possible. The autonomy and the improved work-life balance have helped them find the satisfaction they’d been missing while making burnout less likely.

“When you don’t have to spend 30% of your day apologizing to patients for how bad the health care system is, it reignites your passion for why you went into medicine in the first place,” said Dr. Maniya. In his practice, he’s made a conscious decision to pursue a mix of demographics. “Thirty percent of our patients are Medicaid. The vast majority are middle to low income.”

For physicians who are also parents, the ability to set their own schedules is life-changing.

“My son got an award ... and the teacher invited me to the assembly. In a corporate-based world, I’d struggle to be able to go,” said Dr. Seefeldt. As her own boss, she didn’t have to forgo this special event. Instead, she coordinated directly with her scheduled patient to make time for it.

In Medscape’s report, 61% of employed physicians indicated that they don’t have a say on key management decisions. However, doctors who launch private practices embrace the chance to set their own standards.

“We make sure from the minute someone calls they know they’re in good hands, we’re responsive, we address concerns right away. That’s the difference with private practice – the one-on-one connection is huge,” said Dr. Patel.

“This is exactly what I always wanted. It brings me joy knowing we’ve made a difference in these children’s lives, in their parents’ lives,” she concluded.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

New more aggressive targets for blood pressure and lipids are among the changes to the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care in Diabetes – 2023.

The document, long considered the gold standard for care of the more than 100 million Americans living with diabetes and prediabetes, was published as a supplement in Diabetes Care. The guidelines are also accessible to doctors via an app; last year’s standards were accessed more than 4 million times.

The standards now advise a blood pressure target for people with diabetes of less than 130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets of below 70 mg/dL or no greater than 55 mg/dL, depending on the individual’s cardiovascular risk.

Courtesy Joslin Diabetes Center

“In this year’s version of the ADA Standards of Care – the longstanding guidelines for diabetes management globally – you’ll see information that really speaks to how we can more aggressively treat diabetes and reduce complications in a variety of different ways,” ADA Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Robert A. Gabbay, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Other changes for 2023 include a new emphasis on weight loss as a goal of therapy for type 2 diabetes; guidance for screening and assessing peripheral arterial disease in an effort to prevent amputations; use of finerenone in people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease; use of approved point-of-care A1c tests; and guidance on screening for food insecurity, along with an elevated role for community health workers.

“The management of type 2 diabetes is not just about glucose,” Dr. Gabbay emphasized, noting that the ADA Standards have increasingly focused on cardiorenal risk as well as weight management. “We need to think about all those things, not just one. We have better tools now that have been helpful in being able to move forward with this.”
 

New targets in cardiovascular disease and risk management

As it has been for the past 6 years, the section on cardiovascular disease and risk management is also endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

The new definition of hypertension in people with diabetes is ≥ 130 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure, repeated on two measurements at different times. Among individuals with established cardiovascular disease, hypertension can be diagnosed with one measurement of ≥ 180/110 mm Hg.

The goal of treatment is now less than 130/80 mm Hg if it can be reached safely.

In 2012, easing of the systolic target to 140 mm Hg by the ADA caused some controversy.

But, as Dr. Gabbay explained: “The evidence wasn’t there 10 years ago. We stuck to the evidence at that time, although there was a belief that lower was better. Over the past decade, a number of studies have made it quite clear that there is benefit to a lower target. That’s why we staked out the ground on this.”

The new Standards of Care also has new lipid targets. For people with diabetes aged 40-75 years at increased cardiovascular risk, including those with one or more atherosclerotic risk factors, high-intensity statin therapy is recommended to reduce LDL cholesterol by 50% or more from baseline and to a target of less than 70 mg/dL, in contrast to the previous target of 100 mg/dL.  

To achieve that goal, the document advises to consider adding ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor to maximally tolerated statin therapy.

For people with diabetes aged 40-75 who have established cardiovascular disease, treatment with high-intensity statin therapy is recommended with the target of a 50% or greater reduction from baseline and an LDL cholesterol level of 55 mg/dL or lower, in contrast to the previous 70 mg/dL.

“That is a lower goal than previously recommended, and based on strong evidence in the literature,” Dr. Gabbay noted.

Here, a stronger recommendation is made for ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor added to maximal statins.

And for people with diabetes older than 75 years, those already on statins should continue taking them. For those who aren’t, it may be reasonable to initiate moderate-intensity statin therapy after discussion of the benefits and risks.

Another new recommendation based on recent trial data is use of a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in people with diabetes and heart failure with preserved, as well as reduced, ejection fraction.
 

Kidney disease guidance updated: SGLT2 inhibitors, finerenone

Another recommendation calls for the addition of finerenone for people with type 2 diabetes who have chronic kidney disease (CKD) with albuminuria and have been treated with the maximum tolerated doses of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to improve cardiovascular outcomes as well as reduce the risk of CKD progression.

The threshold for initiating an SGLT2 inhibitor for kidney protection has changed to an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 20 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine (previously ≥ 25 mL/min/1.73 m² and ≥ 300 mg/g, respectively). An SGLT2 inhibitor may also be beneficial in people with a urinary albumin of normal to ≥ 200 mg/g creatinine, but supporting data have not yet been published.

Referral to a nephrologist is advised for individuals with increasing urinary albumin levels or continued decreasing eGFR or eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m².
 

Weight loss, point-of-care testing, food insecurity assessment 

Other changes for 2023 include fresh emphasis on supporting weight loss of up to 15% with the new twincretin tirzepatide (Mounjaro) – approved in the United States in May for type 2 diabetes – added as a glucose-lowering drug with weight loss potential.

A novel section was added with guidance for peripheral arterial disease screening.

And a new recommendation advises use of point-of-care A1c testing for diabetes screening and diagnosis using only tests approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Also introduced for 2023 is guidance to use community health workers to support the management of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors, particularly in underserved areas and health systems.

“Community health workers can be a link to help people navigate and engage with the health system for better outcomes,” said Dr. Gabbay.

He added that these professionals are among those who can also assist with screening for food insecurity, another new recommendation. “We talk about screening for food insecurity and tools to use. That shouldn’t be something only dietitians do.”

Dr. Gabbay said he’d like to see more clinicians partner with community health workers. “We’d like to see more of that ... They should be considered part of the health care team,” he said.

Dr. Gabbay has reported serving on advisory boards for Lark, Health Reveal, Sweetch, StartUp Health, Vida Health, and Onduo.

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

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

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

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

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

The notion that the reason people with obesity are not losing weight is that they aren’t sufficiently incentivized to do so is toxic.
 

It denies the impact of the thousands of genes and dozens of hormones involved in our individual levels of hunger, cravings, and fullness. It denies the torrential current of our ultraprocessed and calorific food environment. It denies the constant push of food advertising and the role food has taken on as the star of even the smallest of events and celebrations. It denies the role of food as a seminal pleasure in a world that, even for those possessing great degrees of privilege is challenging, let alone for those facing tremendous and varied difficulties. And of course, it upholds the hateful notion that, if people just wanted it badly enough, they’d manage their weight, the corollary of which is that people with obesity are unmotivated and lazy. 

Yet the notion that, if people want it badly enough, they’d make it happen, is incredibly commonplace. It’s so commonplace that NBC aired their prime-time televised reality show The Biggest Loser from 2004 through 2016, featuring people with obesity competing for a $500,000 prize during a 30-week–long orgy of fat-shaming, victim-blaming, hugely restrictive eating, and injury. It’s also so commonplace that studies are still being conducted exploring the impact of paying people to lose weight.

The most recent of these – “Effectiveness of Goal-Directed and Outcome-Based Financial Incentives for Weight Loss in Primary Care Patients With Obesity Living in Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Randomized Clinical Trial” – examined the effects of randomly assigning participants whose annual household incomes were less than $40,000 to either a free year of Weight Watchers and the provisions of basic weight loss advice (exercise, track your food, eat healthfully, et cetera) or to an incentivized program that would see them earning up to $750 over 6 months, with dollars being awarded for such things as attendance in education sessions, keeping a food diary, recording their weight, and obtaining a certain amount of exercise or for weight loss.

Resultswise – though you might not have gathered it from the conclusion of the paper, which states that incentives were more effective at 12 months – the average incentivized participant lost roughly 6 pounds more than those given only resources. It should also be mentioned that over half of the incentivized group did not complete the study.

That these sorts of studies are still being conducted is depressing. Medicine and academia need to actively stop promoting harmful stereotypes when it comes to the genesis of a chronic noncommunicable disease that is not caused by a lack of desire, needing the right incentive, but is rather caused by the interaction of millions of years of evolution during extreme dietary insecurity with a modern-day food environment and culture that constantly offers, provides, and encourages consumption. This is especially true now that there are effective antiobesity medications whose success underwrites the notion that it’s physiology, rather than a lack of wanting it enough, that gets in the way of sustained success.

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

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Eating a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet, instead of a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF), leads to significant improvements in type 2 diabetes (T2D), a new study finds.

This was true regardless of an individual’s calorie intake, in the randomized controlled trial published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Patients with T2D who ate a low-carb, high-fat diet (LCHF) lost more weight and saw greater improvements in both glycemic control and insulin resistance than those who ate a high-carb, low-fat diet (HCLF), reported lead author Camilla Dalby Hansen, MD, of University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and colleagues, suggesting that this is an effective, nonpharmaceutical treatment option for T2D.

The trial enrolled 185 patients with T2D, for whom low-calorie diets are often recommended to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control.

The trouble with this common recommendation, the investigators wrote, is that it induces hunger, so few patients stick to it.

“Therefore, calorie-unrestricted diets may be a better alternative to achieve long-term maintenance,” Dr. Hansen and colleagues wrote, noting that this approach “is not widely investigated.”
 

Study methods and results

In the new study, participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to follow the LCHF or HCLF diet for 6 months, with no restriction on calorie intake. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months (3 months after discontinuation). Parameters included glycemic control, serum lipid levels, and metabolic markers. The final analysis included 165 patients.

While patients in both groups lost weight, those in the LCHF group lost, on average, about 8 pounds more than the HCLF group, a significant difference. While the LCHF diet was associated with greater improvements in glycemic control (HbA1c) than the HCLF diet, it also led to slightly greater increases in LDL levels. In both groups, HDL levels increased, and triglycerides decreased, without significant differences between groups.

The above changes were not sustained 3 months after finishing the diet.

“I believe we have sufficient data to include LCHF as one of the diet options for people with type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Hansen said in a written comment, considering all available data.

Although the diet did lead to significant clinical benefits, she predicted that some patients would still struggle with adherence in the real world.

“The LCHF diet can be difficult for some people to follow,” Dr. Hansen said. “It is a bit more expensive, and it can be difficult to comply to in social gatherings, simply because our society is not suited for this type of diet.”
 

The magic of unrestricted calories

Jay H. Shubrook, DO, diabetologist and professor at Touro University of California, Vallejo, offered a similar view.

“When you start to fiddle with the diet, it affects not only the person, but all the people they eat with, because eating is a communal experience,” Dr. Shubrook said, in an interview.

Still, he said the present study is “a big deal,” because T2D is a “noncommunicable pandemic,” and “anything we could do that disrupts this process is very important.”

While some may struggle to follow the LCHF diet, Dr. Shubrook predicted better long-term adherence than the low-calorie diet usually recommended.

“What’s magic about this study is because it wasn’t calorie restricted, I think it made it a little bit more flexible for people to continue,” Dr. Shubrook said.

He added that he thinks patients will need a fair amount of coaching and education about food choices in order to lose weight on a diet without calorie restrictions.
 

Not the first study of its kind

In a written comment, Jeff Volek, PhD, RD, professor at the Ohio State University, Columbus, called the present study “another important piece of work, demonstrating yet again, that a low-carbohydrate eating pattern is superior to a high-carbohydrate approach in people with insulin resistance.”

Yet Dr. Volek, who has conducted numerous studies on low-carbohydrate diets, also said there is “little here that is new or surprising.”

He went on to admonish Dr. Hansen and colleagues for failing to recognize those who have already broken ground in this area.

“Unfortunately, these authors do not give credit to the many researchers who have published extensively on low-carbohydrate diets in the past, and instead make claims about being the first to study a calorie unrestricted low-carb diet in individuals with T2D, which is clearly not the case,” Dr. Volek said. “There is a large body of literature showing similar findings with better control over diet, larger cohorts, longer follow-up, and more comprehensive biomarker assessment.”

He noted that data supporting low-carb diets for T2D have been sufficient since at least 2019, when the American Diabetes Association updated their guidance on the subject.

Citing a paper published in Diabetes Care, he said, “Low-carbohydrate eating patterns, especially very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, have been shown to reduce A1C and the need for antihyperglycemic medications.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, and others. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Eli Lilly, Amgen, UCB, and others. Dr. Shubrook disclosed relationships with Abbot, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and others.

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

Interventional cardiologist Richard B. Zelman, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Cape Cod Hospital, Cape Cod Healthcare Inc., and its chief executive officer Michael K. Lauf, alleging that he was fired and maligned after raising concerns about poorly performed surgeries and poor ethical practices at the hospital.

Dr. Zelman, from Barnstable, Mass., has been affiliated with Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass., for more than 30 years. He helped found the hospital’s Heart and Vascular Institute and has served as its medical director since 2018.

In his lawsuit filed Dec. 6, Dr. Zelman alleges that the defendants, under Mr. Lauf’s leadership, “placed profit above all else, including by prioritizing revenue generation over patient safety and public health.”

Dr. Zelman says the defendants supported him “to the extent his actions were profitable.”

Yet, when he raised patient safety concerns that harmed that bottom line, Dr. Zelman says the defendants retaliated against him, including by threatening his career and reputation and unlawfully terminating his employment with the hospital.

The complaint notes Dr. Zelman is bringing this action “to recover damages for violations of the Massachusetts Healthcare Provider Whistleblower Statute ... as well as for breach of contract and common law claims.”

Dr. Zelman’s complaint alleges the defendants refused to adequately address the “dangerous care and violations of the professional standards of practice” that he reported, “resulting in harmful and tragic consequences.”

It also alleges Mr. Lauf restricted the use of a cerebral protection device used in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) deemed to be at high risk for periprocedural stroke to only those patients whose insurance reimbursed at higher rates.

Dr. Zelman says he objected to this prohibition “in accordance with his contractual and ethical obligations to ensure treatment of patients without regard to their ability to pay.”

Dr. Zelman’s lawsuit further alleges that Mr. Lauf launched a “trumped-up” and “baseless, biased, and retaliatory sham” investigation against him.

In a statement sent to the Boston Globe, Cape Cod Hospital denied Dr. Zelman’s claims that the cardiologist was retaliated against for raising patient safety issues, or that the hospital didn’t take action to improve cardiac care at the facility.
 

Voiced concerns

In a statement sent to this news organization, Dr. Zelman, now in private practice, said, “Over the past 25 years, I have been instrumental in bringing advanced cardiac care to Cape Cod. My commitment has always been to delivering the same quality outcomes and safety as the academic centers in Boston.

“Unfortunately, over the past 5 years, there has been inadequate oversight by the hospital administration and problems have occurred that in my opinion have led to serious patient consequences,” Dr. Zelman stated.

He said he has “voiced concerns over several years and they have been ignored.”

He added that Cape Cod Hospital offered him a million-dollar contract as long as he agreed to immediately issue a written statement endorsing the quality and safety of the cardiac surgical program that no longer exists.

“No amount of money was going to buy my silence,” Dr. Zelman told this news organization.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Zelman is seeking an undisclosed amount in damages, including back and front pay, lost benefits, physical and emotional distress, and attorneys’ fees.

This news organization reached out to Cape Cod Hospital for comment but has not yet received a response.

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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

The randomized, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial has shown a significant reduction in risk for a composite cardiovascular (CV) endpoint among its patients treated with the lipid-lowering agent bempedoic acid (Nexletol), the drug’s owner, Esperion, announced today.

The trial marks the first time an ATP-citrate lyase inhibitor has shown significant and “clinically meaningful” benefit for patients not adequately managed with standard lipid-modifying agents, Esperion president and CEO Sheldon Koenig said in a press release.

The brief statement provided only top-line results, without P values or other evidence of the magnitude of benefit in the active-therapy group. The company expects to present more complete results “at a key medical conference in the first quarter of 2023.”

CLEAR Outcomes had entered 14,014 patients with a history of or at high risk for CV disease events, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and demonstrated intolerance to at least two statins.

They were randomly assigned to bempedoic acid 180 mg once daily or placebo and followed for the primary endpoint of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial, conducted in 32 countries, launched in December 2016.  

Bempedoic acid is currently approved for adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins who require additional LDL-C lowering, the company states.

Concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin or pravastatin, the press release says, may lead to increased statin concentrations and risk for “simvastatin- or pravastatin-related myopathy.” Therefore, “use with greater than 20 mg of simvastatin or 40 mg of pravastatin should be avoided.”

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