MDedge Cardiology

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

The known reduction in the risk of type 2 diabetes associated with adoption of the Mediterranean diet appears specifically attributed to its beneficial effects on some key factors, a new study published online in JAMA Network Open reveals.

While a reduction in body mass index may be somewhat obvious, other mechanisms include beneficial effects on insulin resistance, lipoprotein metabolism, and inflammation.

However, the diet’s antidiabetes effect does not appear to extend to people whose weight is considered healthy (BMI under 25 kg/m²), according to the findings.

“It is striking to see in these U.S. women how strong the long-term antidiabetic properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern are,” senior author Samia Mora, MD, of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“While it was known that the Mediterranean diet has many health benefits in particular on metabolism and inflammation, it was not previously known which of these biological pathways may be contributing to the lower risk of diabetes and to what magnitude.

“Our findings support the idea that by improving their diet, people can improve their future risk of type 2 diabetes, particularly if they are overweight or have obesity,” she added.

“And it’s important to note that many of these changes don’t happen right away. While metabolism can change over a short period of time, our study indicates that there are longer term changes happening that may provide protection over decades.”
 

Mediterranean diet reduced diabetes risk in those with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²

The Mediterranean diet, with an emphasis on healthy olive oil as the predominant source of oil, favors fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, fish, and dairy products, while limiting intake of red and processed meats as well as sweets.

The diet has been linked to as much as a 25%-30% reduction in the risk of diabetes in previous observational studies.

To investigate the precise mechanisms that underlie the prevention of diabetes, lead author Shafqat Ahmad, PhD, also of Harvard, and colleagues examined data from 25,317 healthy women participating in the Women’s Health Study who had baseline assessments between September 1992 and May 1995. They were a mean age of 52.9 years at baseline.

Over the course of the study, 2,307 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

With a mean follow-up of 19.8 years, those who had the highest self-reported adherence to the Mediterranean diet (a score ≥ 6 on a scale of 0-6) at baseline, had as much as a 30% lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes after multivariate adjustments, compared to those with a lower Mediterranean diet score (a score ≤ 3; hazard ratio, 0.70).

The diabetes-related biomarkers that contributed the most to the reduced risk were insulin resistance, accounting for 65% of the reduction, followed by BMI (55.5%), high-density lipoprotein measures (53%), and inflammation (52.5%).

Other factors, though to a lesser degree, included branched-chain amino acids (34.5%), very low-density lipoprotein measures (32.0%), low-density lipoprotein measures (31.0%), blood pressure (29.0%), and apolipoproteins (23.5%).

Differences in hemoglobin A1c levels had a limited effect on the risk (2%).

Notably, a subgroup analysis looking at effects of the diet according to baseline BMI showed the reductions in type 2 diabetes associated with higher intake of the Mediterranean diet extended only to those with an above normal weight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²).

Dr. Mora noted that, as this was not a prespecified analysis, these findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating, but are consistent with the well-known increase in diabetes risk seen with a higher BMI.

“[The finding] fits with the biology and pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes that is driven in large part by excess weight, in particular for visceral adiposity and its resulting metabolic dysregulation and inflammation,” she said.

“We know from other studies, such as the Nurses’ Health Study, that the risk for type 2 diabetes in women increases even at BMI levels below 25 kg/m², but the risk goes up exponentially at around a BMI of 25 and higher.”

Strong role of insulin resistance a surprise

The strong role of insulin resistance was a surprise, Dr. Mora added.

“We were surprised that insulin resistance, measured by a simple blood biomarker, would have the strongest mediating effect – even stronger than BMI – for the Mediterranean diet on risk of diabetes,” she noted.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving insulin resistance through dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet, especially [because] insulin resistance can precede by years and decades the overt hyperglycemia and clinical diagnosis of diabetes.”

Yet another surprise was that A1c had no substantial mediating effect on the reduction of diabetes risk with the Mediterranean diet.

“This could suggest that the cat is out of the bag by the time the A1c rises,” Dr. Mora observed.

A study limitation is that the Women’s Health Study consisted of well-educated U.S. women who were health professionals and predominantly White, so the results may not be generalizable to men or individuals of other races or ethnicities.

In addition, BMI was self-reported and participants were not uniformly screened for diabetes, therefore surveillance bias could be possible.

However, the findings suggest that “even a small increase in adherence to the Mediterranean diet has substantial benefits over many years in preventing diabetes, among many other health benefits such as lowering insulin resistance and inflammation, improving lipid metabolism, and lowering blood pressure,” Mora said.

“And of course, the more the adherence, the more the benefit.” 

The study received support through grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the American Heart Association, and the Molino Family Trust. A coauthor is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease (licensed to AstraZeneca and Siemens).

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

While stressing the urgent need to vaccinate the whole U.S. population, infectious disease experts and medical ethicists are raising questions about the clinical trials needed to answer important questions about the new COVID-19 vaccines.

In a statement released on Nov. 20, Barbara Alexander, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a professor at Duke University, Durham, N.C., commented on Pfizer and BioNTech’s application to the Food and Drug Administration for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its COVID-19 vaccine. Besides emphasizing the need for a transparent review of the companies’ trial data prior to the FDA’s granting an EUA, she said, “If emergency use authorization is granted, clinical trials and data collection must continue.”

In an interview, Dr. Alexander said she is convinced that both Pfizer and Moderna, which is also expected to seek an EUA soon, will continue their clinical trials to monitor the long-term safety and efficacy of their vaccines.

“The EUA guidance for COVID vaccine authorization is very clear that clinical trials will move forward,” she said. “Any EUA request would have to include a strategy to ensure that the long-term safety and efficacy of a vaccine could be monitored. I see no evidence that either Pfizer or Moderna is not prepared to follow those regulations.”

Eventually, she added, the drug makers will have to seek full FDA approval to replace an EUA, which as its name signifies, is designed for public health emergencies. “The EUA is a tool to help us get the vaccine into circulation and have it start working as quickly as possible in the current health crisis,” she said. “But once the crisis is over, if the sponsors want to continue to market their vaccines, they have to go forward and get full approval.”

Medical ethicists, however, point out there may be ethical and practical dilemmas involved in continuing or initiating clinical trials once a vaccine has been approved for use even on an emergency basis.

In a commentary in Annals of Internal Medicine, Rafael Dal-Re, MD, PhD, Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, and two other ethicists stipulated that the pandemic requires early licensing and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Nevertheless, they noted, additional months of data are required to establish the long-term efficacy and safety of the vaccines. “Moreover, early deployment could interfere with the acquisition of long-term data,” both on these vaccines and on others coming through the pipeline, they wrote.

In countries where an approved vaccine is deployed, the ethicists noted, investigators must inform participants in an ongoing trial about the approved vaccine’s status and ask if they want to continue in the study. If enough participants decline, the trial might have to be terminated early. At that point, researchers may not have sufficient long-term data to identify late-term safety issues, determine how long efficacy lasts, determine whether waning immunity is associated with reduced levels of antibodies, or identify the level of neutralizing antibodies that correlates with immunity.

Moreover, they observed, long-term trials are especially important for vaccines that use mRNA technology, because less is known about them than about traditional kinds of vaccines.

The authors also pointed out that early licensing of any vaccine might make it harder to evaluate vaccines that haven’t yet been approved. “Once a vaccine is licensed, new placebo-controlled RCTs [randomized controlled trials] of other vaccines will not be acceptable ethically, and noninferiority RCTs will be the most likely alternative.

“The goal of noninferiority trials will be to demonstrate that the immune response (that is, neutralizing antibody titers or levels) of the candidate vaccine is not inferior to that of the approved vaccine within a prespecified margin, which the FDA has established as less than 10% for COVID-19 vaccines,” the authors noted. 
 

More data with more study designs

Dial Hewlett Jr., MD, medical director for disease control services, Westchester County Department of Health, White Plains, N.Y., said in an interview that the ethicists raise important issues that have been discussed in other forums, including a recent webinar of the National Academy of Medicine.

“As the authors point out, once you have a vaccine that has been shown to be effective and safe, it’s no longer ethical to enroll people in placebo trials,” he said.

Therefore, he said, Pfizer and Moderna will undoubtedly offer their vaccines to the people in their studies’ placebo groups after the vaccines receive an EUA. Then they will follow everyone who has been vaccinated for 2 years to determine long-term safety. Efficacy will also continue to be measured as an adjunct of safety, he said.

With regard to the difficulty of reconsenting individuals to enter a new clinical trial after a vaccine has been approved, he said, “I’d agree that trying to get all the same participants to come into another study would be a challenge. You can, however, design studies that will allow you to obtain the same information. You will have a large number of people out there who haven’t been vaccinated, and you can do single-arm longitudinal studies and measure a number of things in the individuals who are enrolled in those studies,” he said.

“You can look at the immunologic markers, both antibody and T-cell. You can follow these individuals longitudinally to see if they do develop disease over a period of time. If they do, you can determine what their levels of response were,” he added. “So there are opportunities to design studies that would give you some of the same information, although it would not be in the same population that was in the randomized trials.”

For newer vaccines that have yet to be tested, he said, developers can compare “historical controls” from the trials of approved vaccines, i.e., data from the unvaccinated participants in those studies, with the data from inoculating people with the novel agents. The historical data can be sex- and age-matched, among other things, to individuals in the new trials. Moreover, because the study protocols have been harmonized for all trials under Operation Warp Speed, it doesn’t matter what kind of vaccine they’re testing, he said.

It may be necessary to do additional studies to find out how long immunity lasts after people have been vaccinated, Dr. Hewlett pointed out.

“You may have a different trial design. You don’t need a control arm to determine how long immunity lasts. You’re just comparing the patients who were vaccinated to nothing,” he said. “So you could have a single-arm trial on a group of people who consent to be immunized and followed. You can see what their antibody levels are and other surrogate markers, and you can see when they might develop disease, if they do. You’d need a large sample, but you can do that.”

Dr. Hewlett noted that additional studies will be required to determine whether the new vaccines stop transmission of the coronavirus or just prevent symptoms of COVID-19. Until it’s established that a vaccine halts transmission or the country achieves herd immunity, he said, “we’ll still have to wear masks and take other precautions, because a significant portion of people will still be at risk.”
 

‘A lot of redundancy’

Dr. Alexander emphasized that any safety or efficacy issues with the first COVID-19 vaccines must be identified before the vaccine is offered to a large portion of the U.S. population.

“While the data from the Pfizer and Moderna trials are said to be favorable, we at IDSA want to make sure that whatever vaccine comes to market is safe,” she said. “Having an unsafe vaccine on the market would be worse than no vaccine, because you’re compromising the public confidence. We have to make sure the public trusts the process and that sufficient data have been evaluated to ensure the vaccine is safe and efficacious.

“I believe the FDA is being very careful and thoughtful in [its] response,” Dr. Alexander said. “They realize how important it is to get a vaccine and save lives. While they’re doing things differently and moving much faster than before, they’re still trying to be thoughtful and reasonable. They don’t seem to be putting people at risk or circumventing the regulatory standards.”

Moreover, she pointed out, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which is expected to meet on Dec. 10, will review the trial data before the agency grants an EUA to Pfizer or Moderna. Then the FDA will post the data publicly.

The next step is for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look at the data and decide who in the United States should receive the vaccine first, she pointed out. And both Pfizer and Moderna have shown their data to advisory panels of outside experts.

“There’s a lot of redundancy, and a lot of people are looking at the data,” Dr. Alexander said. “So I don’t think we’re cutting corners to get it out there more quickly.”

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

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On Monday, members of an influential federal panel delved into the challenges ahead in deciding who will get the first doses of COVID-19 vaccines, including questions about which healthcare workers need those initial vaccinations the most.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not take any votes or seek to establish formal positions. Instead, the meeting served as a forum for experts to discuss the thorny issues ahead. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could make a decision next month regarding clearance for the first COVID-19 vaccine.

An FDA advisory committee will meet December 10 to review the request for emergency use authorization (EUA) of a COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, in partnership with BioNTech. Moderna Inc said on November 16 that it expects to soon ask the FDA for an EUA of its rival COVID vaccine.

ACIP will face a two-part task after the FDA clears COVID-19 vaccines, said Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. ACIP will need to first decide whether to recommend use of the vaccine and then address the “complicated and difficult” question of which groups should get the initial limited quantities.

“There aren’t any perfect decisions,” she told the ACIP members. “I know this is something that most of you didn’t anticipate doing, making these kinds of huge decisions in the midst of a pandemic.”

There has been considerable public discussion of prioritization of COVID-19 vaccines, including a set of recommendations offered by a special committee created by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. In addition, CDC staff and members of ACIP outlined what they termed the “four ethical principles” meant to guide these decisions in a November 23 report in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. These four principles are to maximize benefits and minimize harms; promote justice; mitigate health inequities; and promote transparency.

But as the issuing of the first EUA nears, it falls to ACIP to move beyond endorsing broad goals. The panel will need to make decisions as to which groups will have to wait for COVID-19 vaccines.

ACIP members on Monday delved into these kinds of more detailed questions, using a proposed three-stage model as a discussion point.

In phase 1a of this model, healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities would be the first people to be vaccinated. Phase 1b would include those deemed essential workers, including police officers, firefighters, and those in education, transportation, food, and agriculture sectors. Phase 1c would include adults with high-risk medical conditions and those aged 65 years and older.

ACIP member Grace M. Lee, MD, MPH, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, questioned whether healthcare workers who are not seeing patients in person should wait to get the vaccines. There has been a marked rise in the use of telehealth during the pandemic, which has spared some clinicians from in-person COVID-19 patient visits in their practices.

“Close partnership with our public health colleagues will be critically important to make sure that we are not trying to vaccinate 100% of our healthcare workforce, if some proportion of our workforce can work from home,” Lee said.

ACIP member Pablo Sánchez, MD, of the Research Institute at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concurred. Some clinicians, he noted, may have better access to personal protective equipment than others, he said.

“Unfortunately, not all healthcare workers are equal in terms of risk,” Sánchez said. “Within institutions, we’re going to have to prioritize which ones will get” the vaccine.

Clinicians may also make judgments about their own risk and need for early access to COVID-19 vaccinations, Sánchez said.

“I’m 66, and I’d rather give it to somebody much older and sicker than me,” he said.
 

Broader access

Fairly large populations will essentially be competing for limited doses of the first vaccines to reach the market.

The overlap is significant in the four priority groups put forward by CDC. The CDC staff estimated that about 21 million people would fall into the healthcare personnel category, which includes hospital staff, pharmacists, and those working in long-term care facilities. There are about 87 million people in the essential workers groups. More than 100 million adults in the United States, such as those with diabetes and cancers, fall into the high-risk medical conditions group. Another 53 million people are aged 65 and older.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on November 18 said the federal government expects to have about 40 million doses of these two vaccines by the end of December, which is enough to provide the two-dose regimen for about 20 million. If all goes as expected, Pfizer and Moderna will ramp up production.

Moderna has said that it expects by the end of this year to have approximately 20 million doses of its vaccine ready to ship in the United States and that it is on track to manufacture 500 million to 1 billion doses globally in 2021. Pfizer and BioNTech have said they expect to produce globally up to 50 million doses in 2020 and up to 1.3 billion doses by the end of 2021.

At the Monday meeting, several ACIP panelists stressed the need to ensure that essential workers get early doses of vaccines.

In many cases, these workers serve in jobs with significant public interaction and live in poor communities. They put themselves and their families at risk. Many of them lack the resources to take precautions available to those better able to isolate, said ACIP member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, of the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

“These essential workers are out there putting themselves at risk to allow the rest of us to socially distance,” she said. “Recognizing that not all of them may want to be vaccinated at this stage, we need to provide them with the opportunity early on in the process.”

In Bell’s view, the initial rollout of COVID-19 vaccines will send an important message about sharing this resource.

“If we’re serious about valuing equity, we need to have that baked in early on in the vaccination program,” she said.

Bell also said she was in favor of including people living in nursing homes in the initial wave of vaccinations. Concerns were raised about the frailty of this population.

“Given the mortality impact on the healthcare system from the number of nursing home residents that have been dying, I think on balance it makes sense to include them in phase 1a,” Bell said.

Other ACIP panelists said missteps with early vaccination of people in nursing homes could undermine faith in the treatments. Because of the ages and medical conditions of people in nursing homes, many of them may die after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Such deaths would not be associated with vaccine, but the medical community would not yet have evidence to disprove a connection.

There could be a backlash, with people falsely linking the death of a grandparent to the vaccine.

Fellow ACIP member Robert L. Atmar, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, was among those who had raised concerns about including people living in long-term care facilities in phase 1a. He said there are not yet enough data to judge the balance of benefits and harms of vaccination for this population.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are “reactagenic,” meaning people may not feel well in the days after receiving the shots. The symptoms could lead to additional health evaluations of older people in nursing homes as clinicians try to figure out whether the patient’s reactions to the vaccine are caused by some condition or infection, Atmar said.

“Those of us who see these patients in the hospital recognize that there are often medical interventions that are done in the pursuit of a diagnosis, of a change in clinical status, that in and of themselves can lead to harm,” Atmar said.

Clinicians likely will have to encourage their patients of all ages to receive second doses of COVID-19 vaccines, despite the malaise they may provoke.

“We really need to make patients aware that this is not going to be a walk in the park. I mean, they’re going to know they had a vaccine, they’re probably not going to feel wonderful, but they’ve got to come back for that second dose,” said Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, MD, who represented the American Medical Association.

ACIP is expected to meet again to offer specific recommendations on the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations trigger reimbursement processes, Azar said at a Tuesday press conference. ACIP’s work will inform decisions made by the federal government and governors about deploying shipments of COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

“At the end of the day, that is a decision, though, of the US government to make, which is where to recommend the prioritization,” Azar said. “It will be our nation’s governors in implementing the distribution plans to tell us” where to ship the vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the indication for the antiviral baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza) to include postexposure prophylaxis of uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years and older.

“This expanded indication for Xofluza will provide an important option to help prevent influenza just in time for a flu season that is anticipated to be unlike any other because it will coincide with the coronavirus pandemic,” Debra Birnkrant, MD, director, Division of Antiviral Products, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

In addition, Xofluza, which was previously available only in tablet form, is also now available as granules for mixing in water, the FDA said.

The agency first approved baloxavir marboxil in 2018 for the treatment of acute uncomplicated influenza in people aged 12 years or older who have been symptomatic for no more than 48 hours.

A year later, the FDA expanded the indication to include people at high risk of developing influenza-related complications, such as those with asthma, chronic lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, or morbid obesity, as well as adults aged 65 years or older.

The safety and efficacy of Xofluza for influenza postexposure prophylaxis is supported by a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial involving 607 people aged 12 years and older. After exposure to a person with influenza in their household, they received a single dose of Xofluza or placebo.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of individuals who became infected with influenza and presented with fever and at least one respiratory symptom from day 1 to day 10.

Of the 303 people who received Xofluza, 1% of individuals met these criteria, compared with 13% of those who received placebo.

The most common adverse effects of Xofluza include diarrhea, bronchitis, nausea, sinusitis, and headache.

Hypersensitivity, including anaphylaxis, can occur in patients taking Xofluza. The antiviral is contraindicated in people with a known hypersensitivity reaction to Xofluza.

Xofluza should not be coadministered with dairy products, calcium-fortified beverages, laxatives, antacids, or oral supplements containing calcium, iron, magnesium, selenium, aluminium, or zinc.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with type 2 diabetes who take metformin during pregnancy to control their blood glucose levels experience a range of benefits, including reduced weight gain, reduced insulin doses, and fewer large-for-gestational-age babies, suggest the results of a randomized controlled trial.

However, the drug was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, which poses the question as to risk versus benefit of metformin on the health of offspring.

“Better understanding of the short- and long-term implications of these effects on infants will be important to properly advise patients with type 2 diabetes contemplating use of metformin during pregnancy,” said lead author Denice S. Feig, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto.

The research was presented at the Diabetes UK Professional Conference: Online Series on Nov. 17 and recently published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Summing up, Dr. Feig said that, on balance, she would be inclined to give metformin to most pregnant women with type 2 diabetes, perhaps with the exception of those who may have risk factors for small-for-gestational-age babies; for example, women who’ve had intrauterine growth restriction, who are smokers, and have significant renal disease, or have a lower body mass index.
 

Increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy

Dr. Feig said that across the developed world there have been huge increases in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy in recent years.

Insulin is the standard treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, but these women have marked insulin resistance that worsens in pregnancy, which means their insulin requirements increase, leading to weight gain, painful injections, high cost, and noncompliance.

So despite treatment with insulin, these women continue to face increased rates of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

And although metformin is increasingly being used in women with type 2 diabetes during pregnancy, there is a scarcity of data on the benefits and harms of metformin use on pregnancy outcomes in these women.

The MiTy trial was therefore undertaken to determine whether metformin could improve outcomes.

The team recruited 502 women from 29 sites in Canada and Australia who had type 2 diabetes prior to pregnancy or were diagnosed during pregnancy, before 20 weeks’ gestation. The women were randomized to metformin 1 g twice daily or placebo, in addition to their usual insulin regimen, at between 6 and 28 weeks’ gestation.

Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed prior to pregnancy in 83% of women in the metformin group and in 90% of those assigned to placebo. The mean hemoglobin A1c level at randomization was 47 mmol/mol (6.5%) in both groups.

The average maternal age at baseline was approximately 35 years and mean gestational age at randomization was 16 weeks. Mean prepregnancy BMI was approximately 34 kg/m².

Of note, only 30% were of European ethnicity.
 

Less weight gain, lower A1c, less insulin needed with metformin

Dr. Feig reported that there was no significant difference between the treatment groups in terms of the proportion of women with the composite primary outcome of pregnancy loss, preterm birth, birth injury, respiratory distress, neonatal hypoglycemia, or admission to neonatal intensive care lasting more than 24 hours (P = 0.86).

However, women in the metformin group had significantly less overall weight gain during pregnancy than did those in the placebo group, at –1.8 kg (P < .0001).

They also had a significantly lower last A1c level in pregnancy, at 41 mmol/mol (5.9%) versus 43.2 mmol/mol (6.1%) in those given placebo (P = .015), and required fewer insulin doses, at 1.1 versus 1.5 units/kg/day (P < .0001), which translated to a reduction of almost 44 units/day.

Women given metformin were also less likely to require Cesarean section delivery, at 53.4% versus 62.7% in the placebo group (P = .03), although there was no difference between groups in terms of gestational hypertension or preeclampsia.

The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal complications, which occurred in 27.3% of women in the metformin group and 22.3% of those given placebo.

There were no significant differences between the metformin and placebo groups in rates of pregnancy loss (P = .81), preterm birth (P = .16), birth injury (P = .37), respiratory distress (P = .49), and congenital anomalies (P = .16).
 

Average birth weight lower with metformin

However, Dr. Feig showed that the average birth weight was lower for offspring of women given metformin than those assigned to placebo, at 3.2 kg (7.05 lb) versus 3.4 kg (7.4 lb) (P = .002).

Women given metformin were also less likely to have a baby with a birth weight of 4 kg (8.8 lb) or more, at 12.1% versus 19.2%, or a relative risk of 0.65 (P = .046), and a baby that was extremely large for gestational age, at 8.6% versus 14.8%, or a relative risk of 0.58 (P = .046).

But of concern, metformin was associated with an increased risk of small-for-gestational-age babies, at 12.9% versus 6.6% with placebo, or a relative risk of 1.96 (P = .03).

Dr. Feig suggested that this may be due to a direct effect of metformin “because as we know metformin inhibits the mTOR pathway,” which is a “primary nutrient sensor in the placenta” and could “attenuate nutrient flux and fetal growth.”

She said it is not clear whether the small-for-gestational-age babies were “healthy or unhealthy.”

To investigate further, the team has launched the MiTy Kids study, which will follow the offspring in the MiTy trial to determine whether metformin during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in adiposity and improvement in insulin resistance in the babies at 2 years of age.
 

Who should be given metformin?

During the discussion, Helen R. Murphy, MD, PhD, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, England, asked whether Dr. Feig would recommend continuing metformin in pregnancy if it was started preconception for fertility issues rather than diabetes.

She replied: “If they don’t have diabetes and it’s simply for PCOS [polycystic ovary syndrome], then I have either stopped it as soon as they got pregnant or sometimes continued it through the first trimester, and then stopped.

“If the person has diabetes, however, I think given this work, for most people I would continue it,” she said.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, and the University of Toronto. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lowering blood pressure for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) does not improve functional recovery, a systematic review and meta-analysis shows, although it does reduce hematoma growth in these patients.

Despite the negative finding, the investigators observed broad variation in treatment effect among the studies they reviewed. They also found that target-based blood pressure treatment tended to improve function more than fixed-dose treatment.

“These data provide a strong message that early blood pressure–lowering treatment can control bleeding. This was not clear beforehand,” Craig Anderson, PhD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said in an interview.

“But these data also indicate that the management of blood pressure in ICH is complex,” he added. Timing, type of drug, and type of patient must be considered, he said. “We need more data to allow better individualizing of such therapy.”

The results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Controversy about the efficacy of blood pressure reduction for patients with ICH continues, despite studies that have examined this question. In this analysis, Dr. Anderson and colleagues sought to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials in this area and identify potentially overlooked heterogeneity among trials.

The investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. They searched for randomized controlled trials of blood pressure management for adults with acute ICH, focusing on studies in which patients were enrolled within 7 days of ICH onset. These studies compared intensive blood pressure management with guideline-based management.

Investigators chose function, defined as Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, as their primary outcome. Radiologic outcomes included absolute (>6 mL) and proportional (>33%) hematoma growth at 24 hours. They used the intention to treat dataset from each trial in their statistical analyses and created generalized linear mixed models with prespecified covariables using a one-stage approach.
 

Variation by drug

A total of 7,094 studies were identified, of which 50 were eligible for inclusion. Their analysis encompassed 16 studies for which the respective investigators were willing to share patient-level data. The analysis included data on 6,221 patients. The mean age of the patients was 64.2 years, 36.4% were women, and the median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3.8 hours.

Mean National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was approximately 11. Mean systolic blood pressure at baseline was 177 mm Hg, and mean hematoma volume was approximately 10.6 mL.

The difference in blood pressure between the intensive and guideline groups was approximately 8 mm Hg at 1 hour and 12 mm Hg at 24 hours.

Intensive blood pressure management did not affect function at 90 days. The adjusted odds ratio for unfavorable shift in mRS scores was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.88-1.06; P = .503). Intensive blood pressure management did, however, reduce hematoma growth (absolute aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.92; P = .007; relative aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; P = .034).

In prespecified subgroup analyses, they found a trend toward adverse outcomes among patients who received renin-angiotensin blockers and a trend toward benefit for patients who received alpha- or beta-receptor antagonists or calcium channel blockers. They did not observe a clear association between time of treatment and outcome.

In addition to hematoma growth, other factors influence prognosis after ICH, such as the patient’s status before ICH (for example, cardiovascular risk factors, age, and hypertensive effects on the brain, kidneys, and heart), the location of ICH and its effects on surrounding structures, and complications of care in hospitals, such as infection and bleeding, said Dr. Anderson.

They are conducting two ongoing clinical trials in patients with ICH. One, INTERACT3, is evaluating a “care bundle” quality control package that includes early intensive blood pressure lowering for patients with large ICH who undergo surgery.

The other, INTERACT4, is evaluating early blood pressure control in the ambulance for patients with suspected acute stroke. At least one-fifth of those patients will have ICH, said Dr. Anderson.
 

Prevention is essential

Among patients with ICH, much of the bleeding occurs before presentation at the hospital, Louis R. Caplan, MD, a neurologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. Furthermore, the bleeding mainly occurs in the deep part of the brain where most of the important motor tracts are. “If those tracts are already hit, a little extra blood isn’t going to change things,” said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved in the research.

In addition, blood is pushed from inside the brain to the periphery until the pressure outside the brain is equal to the pressure inside it. “You can decrease the amount of bleeding significantly, but it probably doesn’t affect the outcome,” said Dr. Caplan.

One factor in patients’ apparent lack of functional improvement is that the mRS is not sensitive to minor changes in disability, he said. “You have to show a pretty important change for it to make a difference,” said Dr. Caplan.

In addition, recovery from a hemorrhage takes much longer than recovery from an infarct. Examining the population at 6 months would have been preferable to examining them at 90 days, but the investigators might not have 6-month data, said Dr. Caplan.

“The main thing is really prevention,” he concluded.

The study was conducted with funding from Takeda. Dr. Anderson reported receiving funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and speaker fees from Takeda. Dr. Caplan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

Contrary to historical evidence, among older people, elevated LDL cholesterol levels increase risk for heart attack and cardiovascular disease, and older patients benefit as much, if not more, from statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs than do younger people, two new studies show.

“By contrast with previous historical studies, our data show that LDL cholesterol is an important risk factor for myocardial infarction and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in a contemporary primary prevention cohort of individuals aged 70 to 100 years,” Borge Nordestgaard, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues noted in the first of the two studies, published this week in the Lancet.

“By lowering LDL cholesterol in healthy individuals aged 70-100 years, the potential for preventing myocardial infarctions and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is huge, and at a substantially lower number needed to treat when compared with those aged 20-69 years,” they added.

“These findings support the concept of the cumulative burden of LDL cholesterol over one’s lifetime and the progressive increase in risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including myocardial infarction, with age,” added Frederick J. Raal, PhD, and Farzahna Mohamed, MB BCh, of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, in an editorial published with both new studies in the Lancet (2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32333-3).

The studies underscore the need for clinicians to consider continued risks associated with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age, they stressed, adding that statins are also beneficial for younger persons at risk to prevent conditions from worsening.

“The average age of patients in all the trials analyzed was older than 60 years, an age when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is already well established,” the editorialists wrote.

“Lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated at a younger age, preferably before age 40 years, in those at risk to delay the onset of atherosclerosis, rather than try to manage the condition once fully established or advanced,” they stressed.
 

No RCTs have included patients older than 70

For persons aged 40-75 years, elevated LDL cholesterol levels are a known risk factor for MI and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and there is consensus in guidelines regarding treatment with statins.

However, the risk for people older than 70 is controversial. Some studies show little or no association between elevated LDL cholesterol levels and an increased risk for MI.

Contributing to the uncertainty is that few of the randomized, controlled trials that have investigated the question have included patients aged older than 70 years.

As a consequence, many practice guidelines have noted that the level of evidence in older patients is low, and some organizations have lowered the strength of recommendations regarding the treatment for older patients in comparison with younger patients.
 

Primary prevention: CV events increase with elevated LDL cholesterol in older age

Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues studied data on 91,131 people living in Copenhagen who did not have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes at baseline and were not taking statins.

Of the participants, 10,592 were aged 70-79 years, and 3,188 participants were aged 80-100 years.

Over an average follow-up period of 7.7 years, 1,515 participants had a first MI, and 3,389 developed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

In the primary-prevention cohort, after multivariate adjustment, the risk of having a heart attack per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol was increased in the group overall (hazard ratio, 1.34). The increased risk was observed for all age groups, including those aged 80-100 years (HR, 1.28), 70-79 (HR, 1.25), 60-69 (HR, 1.29), 50-59 (HR, 1.28), and 20-49 (HR, 1.68).

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was also raised per 1.0 mmol/L increase in LDL cholesterol overall (HR, 1.16) and in all age groups, particularly those aged 70-100 years.

Greater elevations in LDL cholesterol (5.0 mmol/L or higher, indicative of possible familial hypercholesterolemia) were associated with a notably higher risk for heart attack after multivariate adjustment in people aged 80-100 (HR, 2.99). Risk was also higher among those aged 70-79 (HR, 1.82).

The highest incidence was in those older than 70. The rate was 8.5 heart attacks per 1,000 people per year among those aged 80-100 and 5.2 heart attacks per 1,000 in those aged 70-79. The rates were 2.5 per 1,000 among those 60-69, 1.8 for those aged 50-59, and 0.8 for those aged 20-49.

“The absolute risk [of cardiovascular events] is of course much higher in the elderly than those under the age of 75, but what was a surprise was how clear our results were on a relative risk scale, that the risk associated with elevated LDL [cholesterol] was as high in people aged 80-100 as the younger patients,” Dr. Nordestgaard said in an interview.

With regard to the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs, the study showed that the number needed to prevent one heart attack over 5 years was 80 among those aged 80-100; the number was 439 for people aged 50-59.

With regard to stronger statins, when moderate-intensity statins were used, the number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event of any type dropped to 42 for patients aged 80-100. It was 88 for those aged 70-79, 164 for those aged 60-69, 345 for those aged 50-59, and 769 for those aged 20-49.

“The clinical significance of this is that it appears those in older age groups indeed benefit from cholesterol-lowering therapy,” Dr. Nordestgaard said. “I think many people have this idea that LDL [cholesterol] is not important over the age of about 70-75, but that’s not the case.”

“These robust findings are novel,” he and his colleagues stressed.

Despite these observational findings, the South African editorialists noted that “whether lipid-lowering therapy should be initiated for primary prevention in people aged 75 years or older is unclear,” owing to the host of risks and benefits that need to be balanced.

The findings of an ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STAREE) may answer this question, they wrote. It is investigating primary prevention in 18,000 older patients (≥70 years) who are being randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. The study is seeking to determine whether statin treatment extends the length of a disability-free life, which will be assessed on the basis of survival outside permanent residential care. Results are expected in 2022-2023.
 

Unequivocal reductions in events in elderly, comparable with younger patients

In the second study (Lancet. 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[20]32332-1), Baris Gencer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, =and colleagues evaluated the effects of statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs, including ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, in older versus younger patients.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized controlled trials, also published in the Lancet, were presented virtually as a poster as part of the 2020 American Heart Association scientific session. It included data on 244,090 patients, including 21,492 aged 75 years and older.

The meta-analysis included studies of cardiovascular outcomes of a guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol–lowering drug, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and inclusion of data on patients aged 75 years and older.

The results showed that over a median follow-up of 2.2 to 6 years, statin use by older patients was associated with a relative risk reduction of major vascular events of 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (P = .0019), which was comparable with a risk reduction of 15% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol for patients younger than 75 years (P = .37, compared with older patients).

Treatment of older patients with LDL cholesterol–lowering drugs was also associated with significantly improved outcomes in cardiovascular death (risk ratio, 0.85), MI (RR, 0.80), stroke (RR, 0.73), and coronary revascularization (RR, 0.80).

“We found an unequivocal reduction in the risk of major vascular events with both statin and nonstatin LDL cholesterol-lowering treatments, which was similar to that seen in younger patients,” the authors wrote.

“Cholesterol-lowering medications are affordable drugs that have reduced risk of heart disease for millions of people worldwide, but until now, their benefits for older people have remained less certain,” said lead author Marc Sabatine, MD, also of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a Lancet press release.

“Our analysis indicates that these therapies are as effective in reducing cardiovascular events and deaths in people aged 75 years and over as they are in younger people. We found no offsetting safety concerns, and together, these results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of cholesterol-lowering medications, including statin and nonstatin therapy, in elderly people.”

The editorialists agreed: “More than 80% of fatal cardiovascular events occur in individuals older than 65 years, and the incidence of cardiovascular events is increasing in those older than 80 years; therefore, the findings of Gencer and colleagues’ study should encourage the use of lipid-lowering therapy in older patients.”

The authors of the two studies have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for advisory board membership, professional input, and lectures on lipid-lowering drug therapy from Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, and the Medicines Company.

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

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

As far as the pandemic is concerned, it seems like a pretty small thing. A difference of just 0.3%. Children now represent 11.8% of all COVID-19 cases that have occurred since the beginning of the pandemic, compared with 11.5% 1 week ago, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hiding behind that 0.3%, however, is a much larger number: 144,145. That is the number of new child cases that occurred during the week that ended Nov. 19, and it’s the highest weekly figure yet, eclipsing the previous high of 111,946 from the week of Nov. 12, the AAP and the CHA said in their latest COVID-19 report. For the week ending Nov. 19, children represented 14.1% of all new cases, up from 14.0% the week before.

In the United States, more than 1.18 million children have been infected by the coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with the total among all ages topping 10 million in 49 states (New York is not providing age distribution), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam, the AAP/CHA data show. That works out to 11.8% of all cases.

The overall rate of child COVID-19 cases is now up to 1,573 per 100,000 children nationally, with considerable variation seen among the states. The lowest rates can be found in Vermont (344 per 100,000), Maine (452), and Hawaii (675), and the highest in North Dakota (5,589), South Dakota (3,993), and Wisconsin (3,727), the AAP and CHA said in the report.

Comparisons between states are somewhat problematic, though, because “each state makes different decisions about how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases, and as a result the age range for reported cases varies by state. … It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states at this time,” the two organizations noted.

Five more COVID-19–related deaths in children were reported during the week of Nov. 19, bringing the count to 138 and holding at just 0.06% of the total for all ages, based on data from 43 states and New York City. Children’s share of hospitalizations increased slightly in the last week, rising from 1.7% to 1.8% in the 24 states (and NYC) that are reporting such data. The total number of child hospitalizations in those jurisdictions is just over 6,700, the AAP and CHA said.

[email protected]

The more time older women spent sitting or lying down, the more likely their risk of hospitalization for heart failure, based on data from more than 80,000 postmenopausal women.

Cecilie_Arcurs/E+

The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines show evidence of the impact of physical activity on reducing heart failure risk, but the association between activity, sedentary behavior (SB) and heart failure (HF) in older women in particular has not been well studied, wrote Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, of the State University of New York at Buffalo, and colleagues in a study published in Circulation: Heart Failure. “Given the high prevalence of prolonged sedentary time among U.S. adults aged 65 and older, among whom HF burden is substantial, understanding the role SB has in HF development is relevant to future HF prevention strategies,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers identified 80,982 women aged 50-79 years who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, had no known HF, and could walk at least one block unassisted. The average follow-up period was 9 years, and a total of 1,402 women were hospitalized for heart failure during the period of time they were observed.

The time spent sedentary (combined sitting or lying down) was divided into tertiles of 6.5 hours or less, 6.6-9.5 hours, and more than 9.5 hours. Time spent sitting was divided into tertiles of 4.5 hours or less; 4.6-8.5 hours; and more than 8.5 hours.
 

Heart failure risk goes up with more down time

After controlling for multiple variables including age, race, education, income, smoking status alcohol use, menopausal hormone therapy, and hysterectomy status, the researchers found that patients in the second tertile for sedentary behavior had a significantly increased heart failure risk than patients in the first tertile for sedentary behavior. This risk was even greater for patients falling in the third tertile for sedentary behavior. Odds ratios were 1.00 (referent), 1.15, and 1.42 for the lowest to highest tertiles for total sedentary behavior, respectively, and 1.00 (referent), 1.14, and 1.54 for sitting (P < .001 for both total sedentary behavior and sitting only).

The trends remained significant after controlling for comorbidities including MI and coronary revascularization, and the associations were similar among categories of women with additional HF risk factors, including body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and coronary heart disease.

Notably, the association between hours spent sitting or lying down and HF risk persisted even in women who met recommended activity levels, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by the use of self-reports and by the inability to evaluate SB patterns or SB and HF subtypes, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, use of time-varying SB exposure, and extensive controlling, and the data support the risk of increased SB on adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

“Results of this study underscore the need for effective strategies to reduce daily SB time, in addition to increasing recreational physical activity, as part of population efforts for HF prevention,” they concluded.

Clinicians know the value of a physically active lifestyle for heart health, said lead author Dr. LaMonte in a statement accompanying the study’s release. “However, our study clearly shows that we also need to increase efforts to reduce daily sedentary time and encourage adults to frequently interrupt their sedentary time. This does not necessarily require an extended bout of physical activity; it might simply be standing up for 5 minutes or standing and moving one’s feet in place.

“We do not have sufficient evidence on the best approach to recommend for interrupting sedentary time. However, accumulating data suggest that habitual activities such as steps taken during household and other activities of daily living are an important aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention and healthy aging,” Dr. LaMonte added.
 

Promote more movement and less sitting

“This is the first study to assess sedentary time and the risk for incident heart failure hospitalization in postmenopausal women,” said Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, in an interview.

“Heart failure is the cause of approximately 35% of cardiovascular mortalities in women, and sedentary behaviors are common in older adults,” he noted.

Kashif J. Piracha, MD, of Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital, agreed that there is a lack of existing data looking at the relationship between sedentary behavior and the risk of the development of heart failure in postmenopausal women. In an interview, he cited this as a reason “it was important to conduct this study.”

Dr. Hopkins added that he was not surprised by the study results “There are a number of studies which have demonstrated reduction in risk for heart failure in men and in combined populations of men and women with increased physical activity.” There are fewer data (but similar outcomes) in studies of men with increased levels of sedentary behaviors, he said.

“This study adds one more reason that other clinicians in primary care and me need to encourage our older patients to get up and move,” said Dr. Hopkins, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “Many of us have focused our efforts in the past on achieving exercise goals and this study provides a foundation for a recommendation that ‘it is not just about exercise;’ we need to also encourage our patients to minimize their time in sedentary pursuits in addition to exercise if we are to optimize their health into older age.”

Dr. Hopkins noted that the large size of the study was a strength, but the observational design and use of patient surveys were limitations.

“We need further studies to better tease out whether there are risk differences in different sedentary behavior patterns, whether this applies across heart failure with reduced ejection fraction versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and whether there are additional ways we can mitigate these risks as our society ages,” he said.
 

Findings differ from California Men’s Health Study’s

“The results corroborate the fact that there is less risk of heart failure in physically active patients,” Dr. Piracha noted.

The message for clinicians is to encourage postmenopausal female patients to engage in physical activity as much as possible, said Dr. Piracha. “Also, it appears that in this population, even with good physical activity, prolonged sedentary behavior of more than 8.5 hours a day was still associated with a higher risk of incident HF hospitalization. Therefore, a case can be made to focus on carrying out physical activity with an intensity that can be sustained for longer, rather than shorter periods of time.”

Notably, the finding of increased HF hospitalization in women who reported high amounts of physical activity but were still sedentary for more than 8.5 hours a day “is contrary to what was seen in the California Men’s Health Study.” In that study, “men with high physical activity levels who also had prolonged sitting time did not have increased risk of HF hospitalization,” Dr. Piracha noted. “Further research is needed to elucidate what hormonal or other factors contribute to this difference.”

The new study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Hopkins and Dr. Piracha had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: LaMonte MJ et al. Circ Heart Fail. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007508.

The more time older women spent sitting or lying down, the more likely their risk of hospitalization for heart failure, based on data from more than 80,000 postmenopausal women.

Cecilie_Arcurs/E+

The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines show evidence of the impact of physical activity on reducing heart failure risk, but the association between activity, sedentary behavior (SB) and heart failure (HF) in older women in particular has not been well studied, wrote Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, of the State University of New York at Buffalo, and colleagues in a study published in Circulation: Heart Failure. “Given the high prevalence of prolonged sedentary time among U.S. adults aged 65 and older, among whom HF burden is substantial, understanding the role SB has in HF development is relevant to future HF prevention strategies,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers identified 80,982 women aged 50-79 years who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, had no known HF, and could walk at least one block unassisted. The average follow-up period was 9 years, and a total of 1,402 women were hospitalized for heart failure during the period of time they were observed.

The time spent sedentary (combined sitting or lying down) was divided into tertiles of 6.5 hours or less, 6.6-9.5 hours, and more than 9.5 hours. Time spent sitting was divided into tertiles of 4.5 hours or less; 4.6-8.5 hours; and more than 8.5 hours.
 

Heart failure risk goes up with more down time

After controlling for multiple variables including age, race, education, income, smoking status alcohol use, menopausal hormone therapy, and hysterectomy status, the researchers found that patients in the second tertile for sedentary behavior had a significantly increased heart failure risk than patients in the first tertile for sedentary behavior. This risk was even greater for patients falling in the third tertile for sedentary behavior. Odds ratios were 1.00 (referent), 1.15, and 1.42 for the lowest to highest tertiles for total sedentary behavior, respectively, and 1.00 (referent), 1.14, and 1.54 for sitting (P < .001 for both total sedentary behavior and sitting only).

The trends remained significant after controlling for comorbidities including MI and coronary revascularization, and the associations were similar among categories of women with additional HF risk factors, including body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and coronary heart disease.

Notably, the association between hours spent sitting or lying down and HF risk persisted even in women who met recommended activity levels, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by the use of self-reports and by the inability to evaluate SB patterns or SB and HF subtypes, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, use of time-varying SB exposure, and extensive controlling, and the data support the risk of increased SB on adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

“Results of this study underscore the need for effective strategies to reduce daily SB time, in addition to increasing recreational physical activity, as part of population efforts for HF prevention,” they concluded.

Clinicians know the value of a physically active lifestyle for heart health, said lead author Dr. LaMonte in a statement accompanying the study’s release. “However, our study clearly shows that we also need to increase efforts to reduce daily sedentary time and encourage adults to frequently interrupt their sedentary time. This does not necessarily require an extended bout of physical activity; it might simply be standing up for 5 minutes or standing and moving one’s feet in place.

“We do not have sufficient evidence on the best approach to recommend for interrupting sedentary time. However, accumulating data suggest that habitual activities such as steps taken during household and other activities of daily living are an important aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention and healthy aging,” Dr. LaMonte added.
 

Promote more movement and less sitting

“This is the first study to assess sedentary time and the risk for incident heart failure hospitalization in postmenopausal women,” said Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, in an interview.

“Heart failure is the cause of approximately 35% of cardiovascular mortalities in women, and sedentary behaviors are common in older adults,” he noted.

Kashif J. Piracha, MD, of Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital, agreed that there is a lack of existing data looking at the relationship between sedentary behavior and the risk of the development of heart failure in postmenopausal women. In an interview, he cited this as a reason “it was important to conduct this study.”

Dr. Hopkins added that he was not surprised by the study results “There are a number of studies which have demonstrated reduction in risk for heart failure in men and in combined populations of men and women with increased physical activity.” There are fewer data (but similar outcomes) in studies of men with increased levels of sedentary behaviors, he said.

“This study adds one more reason that other clinicians in primary care and me need to encourage our older patients to get up and move,” said Dr. Hopkins, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “Many of us have focused our efforts in the past on achieving exercise goals and this study provides a foundation for a recommendation that ‘it is not just about exercise;’ we need to also encourage our patients to minimize their time in sedentary pursuits in addition to exercise if we are to optimize their health into older age.”

Dr. Hopkins noted that the large size of the study was a strength, but the observational design and use of patient surveys were limitations.

“We need further studies to better tease out whether there are risk differences in different sedentary behavior patterns, whether this applies across heart failure with reduced ejection fraction versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and whether there are additional ways we can mitigate these risks as our society ages,” he said.
 

Findings differ from California Men’s Health Study’s

“The results corroborate the fact that there is less risk of heart failure in physically active patients,” Dr. Piracha noted.

The message for clinicians is to encourage postmenopausal female patients to engage in physical activity as much as possible, said Dr. Piracha. “Also, it appears that in this population, even with good physical activity, prolonged sedentary behavior of more than 8.5 hours a day was still associated with a higher risk of incident HF hospitalization. Therefore, a case can be made to focus on carrying out physical activity with an intensity that can be sustained for longer, rather than shorter periods of time.”

Notably, the finding of increased HF hospitalization in women who reported high amounts of physical activity but were still sedentary for more than 8.5 hours a day “is contrary to what was seen in the California Men’s Health Study.” In that study, “men with high physical activity levels who also had prolonged sitting time did not have increased risk of HF hospitalization,” Dr. Piracha noted. “Further research is needed to elucidate what hormonal or other factors contribute to this difference.”

The new study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Hopkins and Dr. Piracha had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: LaMonte MJ et al. Circ Heart Fail. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007508.

The more time older women spent sitting or lying down, the more likely their risk of hospitalization for heart failure, based on data from more than 80,000 postmenopausal women.

Cecilie_Arcurs/E+

The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines show evidence of the impact of physical activity on reducing heart failure risk, but the association between activity, sedentary behavior (SB) and heart failure (HF) in older women in particular has not been well studied, wrote Michael J. LaMonte, PhD, MPH, of the State University of New York at Buffalo, and colleagues in a study published in Circulation: Heart Failure. “Given the high prevalence of prolonged sedentary time among U.S. adults aged 65 and older, among whom HF burden is substantial, understanding the role SB has in HF development is relevant to future HF prevention strategies,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers identified 80,982 women aged 50-79 years who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study, had no known HF, and could walk at least one block unassisted. The average follow-up period was 9 years, and a total of 1,402 women were hospitalized for heart failure during the period of time they were observed.

The time spent sedentary (combined sitting or lying down) was divided into tertiles of 6.5 hours or less, 6.6-9.5 hours, and more than 9.5 hours. Time spent sitting was divided into tertiles of 4.5 hours or less; 4.6-8.5 hours; and more than 8.5 hours.
 

Heart failure risk goes up with more down time

After controlling for multiple variables including age, race, education, income, smoking status alcohol use, menopausal hormone therapy, and hysterectomy status, the researchers found that patients in the second tertile for sedentary behavior had a significantly increased heart failure risk than patients in the first tertile for sedentary behavior. This risk was even greater for patients falling in the third tertile for sedentary behavior. Odds ratios were 1.00 (referent), 1.15, and 1.42 for the lowest to highest tertiles for total sedentary behavior, respectively, and 1.00 (referent), 1.14, and 1.54 for sitting (P < .001 for both total sedentary behavior and sitting only).

The trends remained significant after controlling for comorbidities including MI and coronary revascularization, and the associations were similar among categories of women with additional HF risk factors, including body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and coronary heart disease.

Notably, the association between hours spent sitting or lying down and HF risk persisted even in women who met recommended activity levels, the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by the use of self-reports and by the inability to evaluate SB patterns or SB and HF subtypes, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, use of time-varying SB exposure, and extensive controlling, and the data support the risk of increased SB on adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

“Results of this study underscore the need for effective strategies to reduce daily SB time, in addition to increasing recreational physical activity, as part of population efforts for HF prevention,” they concluded.

Clinicians know the value of a physically active lifestyle for heart health, said lead author Dr. LaMonte in a statement accompanying the study’s release. “However, our study clearly shows that we also need to increase efforts to reduce daily sedentary time and encourage adults to frequently interrupt their sedentary time. This does not necessarily require an extended bout of physical activity; it might simply be standing up for 5 minutes or standing and moving one’s feet in place.

“We do not have sufficient evidence on the best approach to recommend for interrupting sedentary time. However, accumulating data suggest that habitual activities such as steps taken during household and other activities of daily living are an important aspect of cardiovascular disease prevention and healthy aging,” Dr. LaMonte added.
 

Promote more movement and less sitting

“This is the first study to assess sedentary time and the risk for incident heart failure hospitalization in postmenopausal women,” said Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, in an interview.

“Heart failure is the cause of approximately 35% of cardiovascular mortalities in women, and sedentary behaviors are common in older adults,” he noted.

Kashif J. Piracha, MD, of Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital, agreed that there is a lack of existing data looking at the relationship between sedentary behavior and the risk of the development of heart failure in postmenopausal women. In an interview, he cited this as a reason “it was important to conduct this study.”

Dr. Hopkins added that he was not surprised by the study results “There are a number of studies which have demonstrated reduction in risk for heart failure in men and in combined populations of men and women with increased physical activity.” There are fewer data (but similar outcomes) in studies of men with increased levels of sedentary behaviors, he said.

“This study adds one more reason that other clinicians in primary care and me need to encourage our older patients to get up and move,” said Dr. Hopkins, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. “Many of us have focused our efforts in the past on achieving exercise goals and this study provides a foundation for a recommendation that ‘it is not just about exercise;’ we need to also encourage our patients to minimize their time in sedentary pursuits in addition to exercise if we are to optimize their health into older age.”

Dr. Hopkins noted that the large size of the study was a strength, but the observational design and use of patient surveys were limitations.

“We need further studies to better tease out whether there are risk differences in different sedentary behavior patterns, whether this applies across heart failure with reduced ejection fraction versus heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and whether there are additional ways we can mitigate these risks as our society ages,” he said.
 

Findings differ from California Men’s Health Study’s

“The results corroborate the fact that there is less risk of heart failure in physically active patients,” Dr. Piracha noted.

The message for clinicians is to encourage postmenopausal female patients to engage in physical activity as much as possible, said Dr. Piracha. “Also, it appears that in this population, even with good physical activity, prolonged sedentary behavior of more than 8.5 hours a day was still associated with a higher risk of incident HF hospitalization. Therefore, a case can be made to focus on carrying out physical activity with an intensity that can be sustained for longer, rather than shorter periods of time.”

Notably, the finding of increased HF hospitalization in women who reported high amounts of physical activity but were still sedentary for more than 8.5 hours a day “is contrary to what was seen in the California Men’s Health Study.” In that study, “men with high physical activity levels who also had prolonged sitting time did not have increased risk of HF hospitalization,” Dr. Piracha noted. “Further research is needed to elucidate what hormonal or other factors contribute to this difference.”

The new study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Hopkins and Dr. Piracha had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: LaMonte MJ et al. Circ Heart Fail. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.120.007508.

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]