Clinician Reviews

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among Korean women younger than 50 years, hysterectomy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially stroke, a new cohort study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
• Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
• Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
• The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
• The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
• This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

Despite new options in non–hormone-based treatments, hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and should be considered for healthy menopausal women without contraindications within 10 years of their final menstrual periods.

This recommendation emerged from an updated position statement from the North American Menopause Society in its first review of the scientific literature since 2015. The statement specifically targets nonhormonal management of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, which occur in as many as 80% of menopausal women but are undertreated. The statement appears in the June issue of the Journal of The North American Menopause Society.

“Women with contraindications or objections to hormone treatment should be informed by professionals of evidence-based effective nonhormone treatment options,” stated a NAMS advisory panel led by Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, MS, professor and chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. The statement is one of multiple NAMS updates performed at regular intervals, said Dr. Shufelt, also past president of NAMS, in an interview. “But the research has changed, and we wanted to make clinicians aware of new medications. One of our interesting findings was more evidence that off-label use of the nonhormonal overactive bladder drug oxybutynin can lower the rate of hot flashes.”

Dr. Shufelt noted that many of the current update’s findings align with previous research, and stressed that the therapeutic recommendations apply specifically to VMS. “Not all menopause-related symptoms are vasomotor, however,” she said. “While a lot of the lifestyle options such as cooling techniques and exercise are not recommended for controlling hot flashes, diet and exercise changes can be beneficial for other health reasons.”

Although it’s the most effective option for VMS, hormone therapy is not suitable for women with contraindications such as a previous blood clot, an estrogen-dependent cancer, a family history of such cancers, or a personal preference against hormone use, Dr. Shufelt added, so nonhormonal alternatives are important to prevent women from wasting time and money on ineffective remedies. “Women need to know what works and what doesn’t,” she said.
 

Recommended nonhormonal therapies

Based on a rigorous review of the scientific evidence to date, NAMS found the following therapies to be effective: cognitive-behavioral therapy; clinical hypnosis; SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – which yield mild to moderate improvements; gabapentin – which lessens the frequency and severity of hot flashes; fezolinetant (Veozah), a novel first-in-class neurokinin B antagonist that was Food and Drug Administration–approved in May for VSM; and oxybutynin, an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic drug, that reduces moderate to severe VMS, although long-term use in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline, weight loss, and stellate ganglion block.

Therapies that were ineffective, associated with adverse effects (AEs), or lacking adequate evidence of efficacy and thus not recommended for VMS included: paced respiration; supplemental and herbal remedies such as black cohosh, milk thistle, and evening primrose; cooling techniques; trigger avoidance; exercise and yoga; mindfulness-based intervention and relaxation; suvorexant, a dual orexin-receptor antagonist used for insomnia; soy foods, extracts, and the soy metabolite equol; cannabinoids; acupuncture; calibration of neural oscillations; chiropractics; clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that is associated with significant AEs with no recent evidence of benefit over placebo; dietary modification; and pregabalin – which is associated with significant AEs and has controlled-substance prescribing restrictions.

Ultimately, clinicians should individualize menopause care to each patient. For example, “if a patient says that avoiding caffeine in the morning stops her from having hot flashes in the afternoon, that’s fine,” Dr. Shufelt said.
 

HT still most effective

“This statement is excellent, comprehensive, and evidence-based,” commented Jill M. Rabin MD, vice chair of education and development, obstetrics and gynecology, at Northshore University Hospital/LIJ Medical Center in Manhasset, N.Y., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

Dr. Rabin, coauthor of Mind Over Bladder was not involved in compiling the statement.

She agreed that hormone therapy is the most effective option for VMS and regularly prescribes it for suitable candidates in different forms depending on the type and severity of menopausal symptoms. As for nonhormonal options, Dr. Rabin added in an interview, some of those not recommended in the current NAMS statement could yet prove to be effective as more data accumulate. Suvorexant may be one to watch, for instance, but currently there are not enough data on its effectiveness.

“It’s really important to keep up on this nonhormonal research,” Dr. Rabin said. “As the population ages, more and more women will be in the peri- and postmenopausal periods and some have medical reasons for not taking hormone therapy.” It’s important to recommend nonhormonal therapies of proven benefit according to current high-level evidence, she said, “but also to keep your ear to the ground about those still under investigation.”

As for the lifestyle and alternative remedies of unproven benefit, Dr. Rabin added, there’s little harm in trying them. “As far as I know, no one’s ever died of relaxation and paced breathing.” In addition, a patient’s interaction with and sense of control over her own physiology provided by these techniques may be beneficial in themselves.

Dr. Shufelt reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health. Numerous authors reported consulting fees from and other financial ties to private-sector companies. Dr. Rabin had no relevant competing interests to disclose with regard to her comments.

Despite new options in non–hormone-based treatments, hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and should be considered for healthy menopausal women without contraindications within 10 years of their final menstrual periods.

This recommendation emerged from an updated position statement from the North American Menopause Society in its first review of the scientific literature since 2015. The statement specifically targets nonhormonal management of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, which occur in as many as 80% of menopausal women but are undertreated. The statement appears in the June issue of the Journal of The North American Menopause Society.

“Women with contraindications or objections to hormone treatment should be informed by professionals of evidence-based effective nonhormone treatment options,” stated a NAMS advisory panel led by Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, MS, professor and chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. The statement is one of multiple NAMS updates performed at regular intervals, said Dr. Shufelt, also past president of NAMS, in an interview. “But the research has changed, and we wanted to make clinicians aware of new medications. One of our interesting findings was more evidence that off-label use of the nonhormonal overactive bladder drug oxybutynin can lower the rate of hot flashes.”

Dr. Shufelt noted that many of the current update’s findings align with previous research, and stressed that the therapeutic recommendations apply specifically to VMS. “Not all menopause-related symptoms are vasomotor, however,” she said. “While a lot of the lifestyle options such as cooling techniques and exercise are not recommended for controlling hot flashes, diet and exercise changes can be beneficial for other health reasons.”

Although it’s the most effective option for VMS, hormone therapy is not suitable for women with contraindications such as a previous blood clot, an estrogen-dependent cancer, a family history of such cancers, or a personal preference against hormone use, Dr. Shufelt added, so nonhormonal alternatives are important to prevent women from wasting time and money on ineffective remedies. “Women need to know what works and what doesn’t,” she said.
 

Recommended nonhormonal therapies

Based on a rigorous review of the scientific evidence to date, NAMS found the following therapies to be effective: cognitive-behavioral therapy; clinical hypnosis; SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – which yield mild to moderate improvements; gabapentin – which lessens the frequency and severity of hot flashes; fezolinetant (Veozah), a novel first-in-class neurokinin B antagonist that was Food and Drug Administration–approved in May for VSM; and oxybutynin, an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic drug, that reduces moderate to severe VMS, although long-term use in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline, weight loss, and stellate ganglion block.

Therapies that were ineffective, associated with adverse effects (AEs), or lacking adequate evidence of efficacy and thus not recommended for VMS included: paced respiration; supplemental and herbal remedies such as black cohosh, milk thistle, and evening primrose; cooling techniques; trigger avoidance; exercise and yoga; mindfulness-based intervention and relaxation; suvorexant, a dual orexin-receptor antagonist used for insomnia; soy foods, extracts, and the soy metabolite equol; cannabinoids; acupuncture; calibration of neural oscillations; chiropractics; clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that is associated with significant AEs with no recent evidence of benefit over placebo; dietary modification; and pregabalin – which is associated with significant AEs and has controlled-substance prescribing restrictions.

Ultimately, clinicians should individualize menopause care to each patient. For example, “if a patient says that avoiding caffeine in the morning stops her from having hot flashes in the afternoon, that’s fine,” Dr. Shufelt said.
 

HT still most effective

“This statement is excellent, comprehensive, and evidence-based,” commented Jill M. Rabin MD, vice chair of education and development, obstetrics and gynecology, at Northshore University Hospital/LIJ Medical Center in Manhasset, N.Y., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

Dr. Rabin, coauthor of Mind Over Bladder was not involved in compiling the statement.

She agreed that hormone therapy is the most effective option for VMS and regularly prescribes it for suitable candidates in different forms depending on the type and severity of menopausal symptoms. As for nonhormonal options, Dr. Rabin added in an interview, some of those not recommended in the current NAMS statement could yet prove to be effective as more data accumulate. Suvorexant may be one to watch, for instance, but currently there are not enough data on its effectiveness.

“It’s really important to keep up on this nonhormonal research,” Dr. Rabin said. “As the population ages, more and more women will be in the peri- and postmenopausal periods and some have medical reasons for not taking hormone therapy.” It’s important to recommend nonhormonal therapies of proven benefit according to current high-level evidence, she said, “but also to keep your ear to the ground about those still under investigation.”

As for the lifestyle and alternative remedies of unproven benefit, Dr. Rabin added, there’s little harm in trying them. “As far as I know, no one’s ever died of relaxation and paced breathing.” In addition, a patient’s interaction with and sense of control over her own physiology provided by these techniques may be beneficial in themselves.

Dr. Shufelt reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health. Numerous authors reported consulting fees from and other financial ties to private-sector companies. Dr. Rabin had no relevant competing interests to disclose with regard to her comments.

Despite new options in non–hormone-based treatments, hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and should be considered for healthy menopausal women without contraindications within 10 years of their final menstrual periods.

This recommendation emerged from an updated position statement from the North American Menopause Society in its first review of the scientific literature since 2015. The statement specifically targets nonhormonal management of symptoms such as hot flashes and night sweats, which occur in as many as 80% of menopausal women but are undertreated. The statement appears in the June issue of the Journal of The North American Menopause Society.

“Women with contraindications or objections to hormone treatment should be informed by professionals of evidence-based effective nonhormone treatment options,” stated a NAMS advisory panel led by Chrisandra L. Shufelt, MD, MS, professor and chair of the division of general internal medicine and associate director of the Women’s Health Research Center at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. The statement is one of multiple NAMS updates performed at regular intervals, said Dr. Shufelt, also past president of NAMS, in an interview. “But the research has changed, and we wanted to make clinicians aware of new medications. One of our interesting findings was more evidence that off-label use of the nonhormonal overactive bladder drug oxybutynin can lower the rate of hot flashes.”

Dr. Shufelt noted that many of the current update’s findings align with previous research, and stressed that the therapeutic recommendations apply specifically to VMS. “Not all menopause-related symptoms are vasomotor, however,” she said. “While a lot of the lifestyle options such as cooling techniques and exercise are not recommended for controlling hot flashes, diet and exercise changes can be beneficial for other health reasons.”

Although it’s the most effective option for VMS, hormone therapy is not suitable for women with contraindications such as a previous blood clot, an estrogen-dependent cancer, a family history of such cancers, or a personal preference against hormone use, Dr. Shufelt added, so nonhormonal alternatives are important to prevent women from wasting time and money on ineffective remedies. “Women need to know what works and what doesn’t,” she said.
 

Recommended nonhormonal therapies

Based on a rigorous review of the scientific evidence to date, NAMS found the following therapies to be effective: cognitive-behavioral therapy; clinical hypnosis; SSRIs and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors – which yield mild to moderate improvements; gabapentin – which lessens the frequency and severity of hot flashes; fezolinetant (Veozah), a novel first-in-class neurokinin B antagonist that was Food and Drug Administration–approved in May for VSM; and oxybutynin, an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic drug, that reduces moderate to severe VMS, although long-term use in older adults may be linked to cognitive decline, weight loss, and stellate ganglion block.

Therapies that were ineffective, associated with adverse effects (AEs), or lacking adequate evidence of efficacy and thus not recommended for VMS included: paced respiration; supplemental and herbal remedies such as black cohosh, milk thistle, and evening primrose; cooling techniques; trigger avoidance; exercise and yoga; mindfulness-based intervention and relaxation; suvorexant, a dual orexin-receptor antagonist used for insomnia; soy foods, extracts, and the soy metabolite equol; cannabinoids; acupuncture; calibration of neural oscillations; chiropractics; clonidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist that is associated with significant AEs with no recent evidence of benefit over placebo; dietary modification; and pregabalin – which is associated with significant AEs and has controlled-substance prescribing restrictions.

Ultimately, clinicians should individualize menopause care to each patient. For example, “if a patient says that avoiding caffeine in the morning stops her from having hot flashes in the afternoon, that’s fine,” Dr. Shufelt said.
 

HT still most effective

“This statement is excellent, comprehensive, and evidence-based,” commented Jill M. Rabin MD, vice chair of education and development, obstetrics and gynecology, at Northshore University Hospital/LIJ Medical Center in Manhasset, N.Y., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

Dr. Rabin, coauthor of Mind Over Bladder was not involved in compiling the statement.

She agreed that hormone therapy is the most effective option for VMS and regularly prescribes it for suitable candidates in different forms depending on the type and severity of menopausal symptoms. As for nonhormonal options, Dr. Rabin added in an interview, some of those not recommended in the current NAMS statement could yet prove to be effective as more data accumulate. Suvorexant may be one to watch, for instance, but currently there are not enough data on its effectiveness.

“It’s really important to keep up on this nonhormonal research,” Dr. Rabin said. “As the population ages, more and more women will be in the peri- and postmenopausal periods and some have medical reasons for not taking hormone therapy.” It’s important to recommend nonhormonal therapies of proven benefit according to current high-level evidence, she said, “but also to keep your ear to the ground about those still under investigation.”

As for the lifestyle and alternative remedies of unproven benefit, Dr. Rabin added, there’s little harm in trying them. “As far as I know, no one’s ever died of relaxation and paced breathing.” In addition, a patient’s interaction with and sense of control over her own physiology provided by these techniques may be beneficial in themselves.

Dr. Shufelt reported grant support from the National Institutes of Health. Numerous authors reported consulting fees from and other financial ties to private-sector companies. Dr. Rabin had no relevant competing interests to disclose with regard to her comments.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new guideline from the World Health Organization on nonsugar sweeteners (NSSs) recommends not using them to control weight or reduce the risk for diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. These sweeteners include aspartame, acesulfame K, advantame, saccharine, sucralose, stevia, and stevia derivatives.

The recommendation is based on the findings of a systematic review that collected data from 283 studies in adults, children, pregnant women, and mixed populations.

The findings suggest that use of NSSs does not confer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children. They also suggest that long-term use of NSSs may have potential undesirable effects.

To clarify, short-term NSS use results in a small reduction in body weight and body mass index in adults without significant effects on other measures of adiposity or cardiometabolic health, including fasting glucose, insulin, blood lipids, and blood pressure.

Conversely, on a long-term basis, results from prospective cohort studies suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and all-cause mortality in adults (very low– to low-certainty evidence). 

Regarding the risk for cancer, results from case-control studies suggest an association between saccharine intake and bladder cancer (very low certainty evidence), but significant associations for other types of cancer were not observed in case-control studies or meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.

Relatively fewer studies were found for children, and results were largely inconclusive.

Finally, results for pregnant women suggest that higher NSS intake is associated with increased risk for preterm birth (low-certainty evidence) and possibly adiposity in offspring (very low–certainty evidence).
 

Reducing sugar consumption

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long-term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages,” Francesco Branca, MD, PhD, WHO director of the department of nutrition and food safety, said in a press release. 

“NSSs are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health,” he added.
 

Applying the guideline

The recommendation applies to all people except individuals with preexisting diabetes and includes all synthetic and naturally occurring or modified nonnutritive sweeteners, said the WHO. 

The recommendation does not apply to personal care and hygiene products containing NSSs, such as toothpaste, skin cream, and medications, or to low-calorie sugars and sugar alcohols (polyols).

Because the link observed in the evidence between NSSs and disease outcomes might be confounded by the baseline characteristics of study participants and complicated patterns of NSS use, the recommendation has been assessed as “conditional” by the WHO. 

“This signals that policy decisions based on this recommendation may require substantive discussion in specific country contexts, linked for example to the extent of consumption in different age groups,” said the WHO press release. 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition . A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

A low-carbohydrate breakfast was better than a control (low-fat) breakfast to decrease glycemic variability throughout the day in type 2 diabetes, in new research.

These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.

“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”

“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”

The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
 

Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?

People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.

And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.

They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.

They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.

The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.

After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.

The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.

The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m², and A1c of 7.0%.

Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.

Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.

Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.

Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.

The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.

The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.

They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.

The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
 

Intervention improved CGM measures

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).

Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.

However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).

Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).

In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.

This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.

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

A low-carbohydrate breakfast was better than a control (low-fat) breakfast to decrease glycemic variability throughout the day in type 2 diabetes, in new research.

These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.

“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”

“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”

The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
 

Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?

People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.

And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.

They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.

They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.

The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.

After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.

The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.

The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m², and A1c of 7.0%.

Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.

Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.

Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.

Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.

The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.

The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.

They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.

The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
 

Intervention improved CGM measures

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).

Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.

However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).

Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).

In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.

This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.

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

A low-carbohydrate breakfast was better than a control (low-fat) breakfast to decrease glycemic variability throughout the day in type 2 diabetes, in new research.

These findings from a 3-month randomized study in 121 patients in Canada and Australia were published online recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The researchers aimed to determine whether a low-carbohydrate, high-fat breakfast (focused around eggs), compared with a standard, low-fat control breakfast (designed to have no/minimal eggs), would improve blood glucose control in individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“We’ve determined that if the first meal of the day is low-carb and higher in protein and fat we can limit hyperglycemic swings,” lead author Barbara Oliveira, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, said in a press release from the university.

“Having fewer carbs for breakfast not only aligns better with how people with [type 2 diabetes] handle glucose throughout the day,” she noted, “but it also has incredible potential for people with [type 2 diabetes] who struggle with their glucose levels in the morning.”

“By making a small adjustment to the carb content of a single meal rather than the entire diet,” Dr. Oliveira added, “we have the potential to increase adherence significantly while still obtaining significant benefits.”

The researchers conclude that “this trial provides evidence that advice to consume a low-carbohydrate breakfast could be a simple, feasible, and effective approach to manage postprandial hyperglycemia and lower glycemic variability in people living with type 2 diabetes.”
 

Could breakfast tweak improve glucose control?

People with type 2 diabetes have higher levels of insulin resistance and greater glucose intolerance in the morning, the researchers write.

And consuming a low-fat, high-carbohydrate meal in line with most dietary guidelines appears to incur the highest hyperglycemia spike and leads to higher glycemic variability.

They speculated that eating a low-carb breakfast, compared with a low-fat breakfast, might be an easy way to mitigate this.

They recruited participants from online ads in three provinces in Canada and four states in Australia, and they conducted the study from a site in British Columbia and one in Wollongong, Australia.

The participants were aged 20-79 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. They also had a current hemoglobin A1c < 8.5% and no allergies to eggs, and they were able to follow remote, online guidance.

After screening, the participants had a phone or video conference call with a member of the research team who explained the study.

The researchers randomly assigned 75 participants in Canada and 46 participants in Australia 1:1 to the low-carbohydrate intervention or the control intervention.

The participants had a mean age of 64 and 53% were women. They had a mean weight of 93 kg (204 lb), body mass index of 32 kg/m², and A1c of 7.0%.

Registered dietitians in Canada and Australia each designed 8-10 recipes/menus for low-carb breakfasts and an equal number of recipes/menus for control (low-fat) breakfasts that were specific for those countries.

Each recipe contains about 450 kcal, and they are available in Supplemental Appendix 1A and 1B, with the article.

Each low-carbohydrate breakfast contains about 25 g protein, 8 g carbohydrates, and 37 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a three-egg omelet with spinach.

Each control (low-fat) recipe contains about 20 g protein, 56 g carbohydrates, and 15 g fat. For example, one breakfast is a small blueberry muffin and a small plain Greek yogurt.

The participants were advised to select one of these breakfasts every day and follow it exactly (they were also required to upload a photograph of their breakfast every morning). They were not given any guidance or calorie restriction for the other meals of the day.

The participants also filled in 3-day food records and answered a questionnaire about exercise, hunger, and satiety, at the beginning, middle, and end of the intervention.

They provided self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference, and they were given requisitions for blood tests for A1c to be done at a local laboratory, at the beginning and end of the intervention.

The participants also wore a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) during the first and last 14 days of the intervention.
 

Intervention improved CGM measures

There was no significant difference in the primary outcome, change in A1c, at the end of 12 weeks, in the two groups. The mean A1c decreased by 0.3% in the intervention group vs 0.1% in the control group (P = .06).

Similarly, in secondary outcomes, weight and BMI each decreased about 1% and waist circumference decreased by about 2.5 cm in each group at 12 weeks (no significant difference). There were also no significant differences in hunger, satiety, or physical activity between the two groups.

However, the 24-hour CGM data showed that mean and maximum glucose, glycemic variability, and time above range were all significantly lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast intervention group vs. those in the control group (all P < .05).

Time in range was significantly higher among participants in the intervention group (P < .05).

In addition, the 2-hour postprandial CGM data showed that mean glucose and maximum glucose after breakfast were lower in participants in the low-carbohydrate breakfast group than in the control group.

This work was supported by investigator-initiated operating grants to senior author Jonathan P. Little, PhD, School of Health and Exercise Sciences, University of British Columbia, from the Egg Nutrition Center, United States, and Egg Farmers of Canada. The authors declare that they have no relevant financial relationships.

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

MANNHEIM, GERMANY – Patients with high lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels not only have an almost twofold higher coronary plaque burden than those with low levels but also a faster rate of plaque progression, an observational imaging study shows.

This could explain the greater risk for major adverse cardiovascular events seen in patients with high Lp(a) levels, suggests the research, presented during the annual European Atherosclerosis Society Congress.

The team performed follow-up coronary CT angiography (CCTA) on almost 275 patients who had undergone imaging approximately 10 years earlier, finding that almost one-third had high Lp(a) levels.

At baseline, per cent plaque volumes were 1.8 times greater in high Lp(a) patients versus those with low levels of the protein. After 10 years, plaque volumes were 3.3 times larger in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Over this period, the rate of increase of plaque volume was 1.9 times greater in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Study presenter Nick S. Nurmohamed, MD, PhD candidate, department of vascular medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, also showed that high Lp(a) levels were associated with a 2.1-fold increase in rates of MACE.

He said in an interview that this finding could be related to Lp(a) increasing inflammatory signaling in the plaque, “making it more prone to rupture, and we saw that on the CCTA scans,” where high Lp(a) levels were associated with the presence of more high-risk plaques.

He added that in the absence of drugs that target Lp(a) levels directly, the results underline the need to focus on other means of lipid-lowering, as well as “creating awareness that Lp(a) is associated with plaque formation.”

Dr. Nurmohamed said that “for the moment, we have to treat patients with high Lp(a) with other risk-lowering therapies, such as low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol–lowering drugs, and the management of other risk factors.”

However, he noted that “there are a couple of Lp(a)-lowering medications in trials,” with results expected in the next 2-3 years.

“Then we will have the means to treat those patients, and with CCTA we can identify the patients with the biggest risk,” Dr. Nurmohamed added.
 

Plaque burden

Philippe Moulin, MD, PhD, head of endocrinology and professor of human nutrition at Faculté Lyon Est, Claude Bernard Lyon (France) 1 University, said that the association between Lp(a) and plaque burden has been seen previously in the literature in a very similar study but with only 1-year follow-up.

Similarly, registry data have suggested that Lp(a) is associated with worsening plaque progression over time.

“Here, with 10-year follow-up, [the study] is much more interesting,” due to its greater statistical power, he said in an interview. It is also “well-documented” and uses an “appropriate” methodology.

But Dr. Moulin underlined that the number of patients with high Lp(a) levels included in the study is relatively small.

Consequently, the researchers were not able to look at the level and rate of progression of atherosclerosis between different quartiles of Lp(a), “so you have no dose-response analysis.”

It also does not “establish causality,” as it remains an observational study, despite being longitudinal, “well done, and so on.”

Dr. Moulin added that the study nevertheless adds “one more stone” to the construct of the idea of high risk around high Lp(a) levels, and “prepares the ground” for the availability of two drugs to decrease Lp(a) levels, expected in 2026 and 2027.

These are expected to substantially reduce Lp(a) levels and achieve a reduction in cardiovascular risk of around 20%-40%, “which would be interesting,” especially as “we have patients who have Lp(a) levels four times above the upper normal value.”

Crucially, they may already have normal LDL cholesterol levels, meaning that, for some patients, “there is clearly a need for such treatment, as long as it is proven that it will decrease cardiovascular risk.”

For the moment, however, the strategy for managing patients with high Lp(a) remains to increase the dose of statin and to have more stringent targets, although Dr. Moulin pointed out that, “when you give statins, you raise slightly Lp(a) levels.”

Dr. Nurmohamed said in an interview that “we know from largely genetic and observational studies that Lp(a) is causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

What is less clear is the exact underlying mechanism, he said, noting that there have been several imaging studies in high and low Lp(a) patients that have yielded conflicting results in terms of the relationship with plaque burden.

To investigate the impact of Lp(a) levels on long-term coronary plaque progression, the team invited patients who had taken part in a previous CCTA study to undergo repeat CCTA, regardless of their underlying symptoms.

In all, 299 patients underwent follow-up imaging a median of 10.2 years after their original scan. Plaque volumes were quantified and adjusted for vessel volumes, and the patients were classified as having high (≥ 70 nmol/L) or low (< 70 nmol/L) Lp(a) levels.

After excluding patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting, the team analyzed 274 patients with a mean age at baseline of 57 years. Of these, 159 (58%) were men. High Lp(a) levels were identified in 87 (32%) patients.

The team found that at baseline, patients with high Lp(a) levels had significantly larger percent atheroma volumes than those with low levels, at 3.92% versus 2.17%, or an absolute difference of 1.75% (P = .013).

The difference between the two groups was even greater at the follow-up, when percent atheroma volumes reached 8.75% in patients with high Lp(a) levels versus 3.90% for those with low levels, or an absolute difference of 4.85% (P = .005).

Similar findings were seen when looking separately at percentage of noncalcified and calcified plaque volumes as well as when analyzing for the presence of low-density plaques.

Multivariate analysis taking into account clinical risk factors, statin use, and CT tube voltage found that high Lp(a) levels were associated with a greater percent atheroma volume at baseline, at an odds ratio versus low Lp(a) of 1.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-3.54; P = .037).

High Lp(a) levels were also linked to a larger percent atheroma volume on follow-up imaging, at an odds ratio of 3.25 (95% CI, 0.80-5.71; P = .010), and a significantly greater change in atheroma volume from baseline to follow-up imaging, at an odds ratio of 1.86 (95% CI, 0.59-3.14; P = .005)

Finally, the team showed that, after adjusting for clinical risk factors, high baseline Lp(a) levels were associated with an increased risk of MACE during the follow-up period, at a hazard ratio versus low Lp(a) levels of 2.10 (95% CI, 1.01-4.29, P = .048).

No funding was declared. Dr. Nurmohamed is cofounder of Lipid Tools. Other authors declare relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Esperion, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ackee, Cleerly, GW Heart and Vascular Institute, Siemens Healthineers, and HeartFlow.

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

MANNHEIM, GERMANY – Patients with high lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels not only have an almost twofold higher coronary plaque burden than those with low levels but also a faster rate of plaque progression, an observational imaging study shows.

This could explain the greater risk for major adverse cardiovascular events seen in patients with high Lp(a) levels, suggests the research, presented during the annual European Atherosclerosis Society Congress.

The team performed follow-up coronary CT angiography (CCTA) on almost 275 patients who had undergone imaging approximately 10 years earlier, finding that almost one-third had high Lp(a) levels.

At baseline, per cent plaque volumes were 1.8 times greater in high Lp(a) patients versus those with low levels of the protein. After 10 years, plaque volumes were 3.3 times larger in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Over this period, the rate of increase of plaque volume was 1.9 times greater in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Study presenter Nick S. Nurmohamed, MD, PhD candidate, department of vascular medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, also showed that high Lp(a) levels were associated with a 2.1-fold increase in rates of MACE.

He said in an interview that this finding could be related to Lp(a) increasing inflammatory signaling in the plaque, “making it more prone to rupture, and we saw that on the CCTA scans,” where high Lp(a) levels were associated with the presence of more high-risk plaques.

He added that in the absence of drugs that target Lp(a) levels directly, the results underline the need to focus on other means of lipid-lowering, as well as “creating awareness that Lp(a) is associated with plaque formation.”

Dr. Nurmohamed said that “for the moment, we have to treat patients with high Lp(a) with other risk-lowering therapies, such as low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol–lowering drugs, and the management of other risk factors.”

However, he noted that “there are a couple of Lp(a)-lowering medications in trials,” with results expected in the next 2-3 years.

“Then we will have the means to treat those patients, and with CCTA we can identify the patients with the biggest risk,” Dr. Nurmohamed added.
 

Plaque burden

Philippe Moulin, MD, PhD, head of endocrinology and professor of human nutrition at Faculté Lyon Est, Claude Bernard Lyon (France) 1 University, said that the association between Lp(a) and plaque burden has been seen previously in the literature in a very similar study but with only 1-year follow-up.

Similarly, registry data have suggested that Lp(a) is associated with worsening plaque progression over time.

“Here, with 10-year follow-up, [the study] is much more interesting,” due to its greater statistical power, he said in an interview. It is also “well-documented” and uses an “appropriate” methodology.

But Dr. Moulin underlined that the number of patients with high Lp(a) levels included in the study is relatively small.

Consequently, the researchers were not able to look at the level and rate of progression of atherosclerosis between different quartiles of Lp(a), “so you have no dose-response analysis.”

It also does not “establish causality,” as it remains an observational study, despite being longitudinal, “well done, and so on.”

Dr. Moulin added that the study nevertheless adds “one more stone” to the construct of the idea of high risk around high Lp(a) levels, and “prepares the ground” for the availability of two drugs to decrease Lp(a) levels, expected in 2026 and 2027.

These are expected to substantially reduce Lp(a) levels and achieve a reduction in cardiovascular risk of around 20%-40%, “which would be interesting,” especially as “we have patients who have Lp(a) levels four times above the upper normal value.”

Crucially, they may already have normal LDL cholesterol levels, meaning that, for some patients, “there is clearly a need for such treatment, as long as it is proven that it will decrease cardiovascular risk.”

For the moment, however, the strategy for managing patients with high Lp(a) remains to increase the dose of statin and to have more stringent targets, although Dr. Moulin pointed out that, “when you give statins, you raise slightly Lp(a) levels.”

Dr. Nurmohamed said in an interview that “we know from largely genetic and observational studies that Lp(a) is causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

What is less clear is the exact underlying mechanism, he said, noting that there have been several imaging studies in high and low Lp(a) patients that have yielded conflicting results in terms of the relationship with plaque burden.

To investigate the impact of Lp(a) levels on long-term coronary plaque progression, the team invited patients who had taken part in a previous CCTA study to undergo repeat CCTA, regardless of their underlying symptoms.

In all, 299 patients underwent follow-up imaging a median of 10.2 years after their original scan. Plaque volumes were quantified and adjusted for vessel volumes, and the patients were classified as having high (≥ 70 nmol/L) or low (< 70 nmol/L) Lp(a) levels.

After excluding patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting, the team analyzed 274 patients with a mean age at baseline of 57 years. Of these, 159 (58%) were men. High Lp(a) levels were identified in 87 (32%) patients.

The team found that at baseline, patients with high Lp(a) levels had significantly larger percent atheroma volumes than those with low levels, at 3.92% versus 2.17%, or an absolute difference of 1.75% (P = .013).

The difference between the two groups was even greater at the follow-up, when percent atheroma volumes reached 8.75% in patients with high Lp(a) levels versus 3.90% for those with low levels, or an absolute difference of 4.85% (P = .005).

Similar findings were seen when looking separately at percentage of noncalcified and calcified plaque volumes as well as when analyzing for the presence of low-density plaques.

Multivariate analysis taking into account clinical risk factors, statin use, and CT tube voltage found that high Lp(a) levels were associated with a greater percent atheroma volume at baseline, at an odds ratio versus low Lp(a) of 1.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-3.54; P = .037).

High Lp(a) levels were also linked to a larger percent atheroma volume on follow-up imaging, at an odds ratio of 3.25 (95% CI, 0.80-5.71; P = .010), and a significantly greater change in atheroma volume from baseline to follow-up imaging, at an odds ratio of 1.86 (95% CI, 0.59-3.14; P = .005)

Finally, the team showed that, after adjusting for clinical risk factors, high baseline Lp(a) levels were associated with an increased risk of MACE during the follow-up period, at a hazard ratio versus low Lp(a) levels of 2.10 (95% CI, 1.01-4.29, P = .048).

No funding was declared. Dr. Nurmohamed is cofounder of Lipid Tools. Other authors declare relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Esperion, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ackee, Cleerly, GW Heart and Vascular Institute, Siemens Healthineers, and HeartFlow.

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

MANNHEIM, GERMANY – Patients with high lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels not only have an almost twofold higher coronary plaque burden than those with low levels but also a faster rate of plaque progression, an observational imaging study shows.

This could explain the greater risk for major adverse cardiovascular events seen in patients with high Lp(a) levels, suggests the research, presented during the annual European Atherosclerosis Society Congress.

The team performed follow-up coronary CT angiography (CCTA) on almost 275 patients who had undergone imaging approximately 10 years earlier, finding that almost one-third had high Lp(a) levels.

At baseline, per cent plaque volumes were 1.8 times greater in high Lp(a) patients versus those with low levels of the protein. After 10 years, plaque volumes were 3.3 times larger in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Over this period, the rate of increase of plaque volume was 1.9 times greater in patients with high Lp(a) levels.

Study presenter Nick S. Nurmohamed, MD, PhD candidate, department of vascular medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, also showed that high Lp(a) levels were associated with a 2.1-fold increase in rates of MACE.

He said in an interview that this finding could be related to Lp(a) increasing inflammatory signaling in the plaque, “making it more prone to rupture, and we saw that on the CCTA scans,” where high Lp(a) levels were associated with the presence of more high-risk plaques.

He added that in the absence of drugs that target Lp(a) levels directly, the results underline the need to focus on other means of lipid-lowering, as well as “creating awareness that Lp(a) is associated with plaque formation.”

Dr. Nurmohamed said that “for the moment, we have to treat patients with high Lp(a) with other risk-lowering therapies, such as low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol–lowering drugs, and the management of other risk factors.”

However, he noted that “there are a couple of Lp(a)-lowering medications in trials,” with results expected in the next 2-3 years.

“Then we will have the means to treat those patients, and with CCTA we can identify the patients with the biggest risk,” Dr. Nurmohamed added.
 

Plaque burden

Philippe Moulin, MD, PhD, head of endocrinology and professor of human nutrition at Faculté Lyon Est, Claude Bernard Lyon (France) 1 University, said that the association between Lp(a) and plaque burden has been seen previously in the literature in a very similar study but with only 1-year follow-up.

Similarly, registry data have suggested that Lp(a) is associated with worsening plaque progression over time.

“Here, with 10-year follow-up, [the study] is much more interesting,” due to its greater statistical power, he said in an interview. It is also “well-documented” and uses an “appropriate” methodology.

But Dr. Moulin underlined that the number of patients with high Lp(a) levels included in the study is relatively small.

Consequently, the researchers were not able to look at the level and rate of progression of atherosclerosis between different quartiles of Lp(a), “so you have no dose-response analysis.”

It also does not “establish causality,” as it remains an observational study, despite being longitudinal, “well done, and so on.”

Dr. Moulin added that the study nevertheless adds “one more stone” to the construct of the idea of high risk around high Lp(a) levels, and “prepares the ground” for the availability of two drugs to decrease Lp(a) levels, expected in 2026 and 2027.

These are expected to substantially reduce Lp(a) levels and achieve a reduction in cardiovascular risk of around 20%-40%, “which would be interesting,” especially as “we have patients who have Lp(a) levels four times above the upper normal value.”

Crucially, they may already have normal LDL cholesterol levels, meaning that, for some patients, “there is clearly a need for such treatment, as long as it is proven that it will decrease cardiovascular risk.”

For the moment, however, the strategy for managing patients with high Lp(a) remains to increase the dose of statin and to have more stringent targets, although Dr. Moulin pointed out that, “when you give statins, you raise slightly Lp(a) levels.”

Dr. Nurmohamed said in an interview that “we know from largely genetic and observational studies that Lp(a) is causally associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.”

What is less clear is the exact underlying mechanism, he said, noting that there have been several imaging studies in high and low Lp(a) patients that have yielded conflicting results in terms of the relationship with plaque burden.

To investigate the impact of Lp(a) levels on long-term coronary plaque progression, the team invited patients who had taken part in a previous CCTA study to undergo repeat CCTA, regardless of their underlying symptoms.

In all, 299 patients underwent follow-up imaging a median of 10.2 years after their original scan. Plaque volumes were quantified and adjusted for vessel volumes, and the patients were classified as having high (≥ 70 nmol/L) or low (< 70 nmol/L) Lp(a) levels.

After excluding patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting, the team analyzed 274 patients with a mean age at baseline of 57 years. Of these, 159 (58%) were men. High Lp(a) levels were identified in 87 (32%) patients.

The team found that at baseline, patients with high Lp(a) levels had significantly larger percent atheroma volumes than those with low levels, at 3.92% versus 2.17%, or an absolute difference of 1.75% (P = .013).

The difference between the two groups was even greater at the follow-up, when percent atheroma volumes reached 8.75% in patients with high Lp(a) levels versus 3.90% for those with low levels, or an absolute difference of 4.85% (P = .005).

Similar findings were seen when looking separately at percentage of noncalcified and calcified plaque volumes as well as when analyzing for the presence of low-density plaques.

Multivariate analysis taking into account clinical risk factors, statin use, and CT tube voltage found that high Lp(a) levels were associated with a greater percent atheroma volume at baseline, at an odds ratio versus low Lp(a) of 1.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.12-3.54; P = .037).

High Lp(a) levels were also linked to a larger percent atheroma volume on follow-up imaging, at an odds ratio of 3.25 (95% CI, 0.80-5.71; P = .010), and a significantly greater change in atheroma volume from baseline to follow-up imaging, at an odds ratio of 1.86 (95% CI, 0.59-3.14; P = .005)

Finally, the team showed that, after adjusting for clinical risk factors, high baseline Lp(a) levels were associated with an increased risk of MACE during the follow-up period, at a hazard ratio versus low Lp(a) levels of 2.10 (95% CI, 1.01-4.29, P = .048).

No funding was declared. Dr. Nurmohamed is cofounder of Lipid Tools. Other authors declare relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Esperion, Sanofi-Regeneron, Ackee, Cleerly, GW Heart and Vascular Institute, Siemens Healthineers, and HeartFlow.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Maintaining a regular healthy sleep schedule may help guard against premature death, new research suggests.

In a diverse group of older adults, those with regular and optimal sleep had about a 40% lower risk of dying of any cause during follow-up compared with peers who had irregular and insufficient sleep.

“If sleep were an 8-hour pill, it would be beneficial to take the full dose at regular times consistently,” lead researcher Joon Chung, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a news release.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Broad adverse health effects

“Evidence is mounting that irregular sleep is associated with pretty broad adverse health outcomes, most prominently cardiometabolic disease, obesity, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Chungsaid in an interview.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In the current study, the researchers estimated the association of regular sleep of optimal sleep duration with all-cause mortality using data from 1,759 adults the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Sleep Study.

Sleep regularity and duration were classified using 7 days of data gathered by wrist actigraphy. Adults were categorized as “regular-optimal” sleepers (n = 1,015) or “irregular-insufficient” sleepers (n = 744).

During 7 years of follow-up, 176 people died. In the fully adjusted model, the regular-optimal group had a 39% lower mortality risk compared with the irregular-insufficient sleep group (hazard ratio, 0.61;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.83). The findings were robust in sensitivity analyses.

The regular and optimal duration sleep pattern maps behaviorally to regular bed and wake times, suggesting potential health benefits of adherence to recommended sleep practices, the researchers noted.

“Results suggest benefits of expanding the public conversation on getting ‘a good night’s sleep’ and broadening this goal to getting many good nights of sleep, in a row, on weekdays and weekends,” Dr. Chung said in the release.

He further said that “getting adequate, regular sleep seems to be something that is good for all. I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t benefit.”

Fariha Abassi-Feinberg, MD, spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and sleep specialist with the Millennium Physician Group, Fort Myers, Fla., agreed.

“We know our bodies have an internal clock, known as the circadian rhythm, which regulates various biological processes, including sleep-wake cycles. Sticking to a consistent sleep schedule allows your body to align its natural rhythm with the external day-night cycle. This synchronization promotes better sleep quality and therefore better health,” said Dr. Abassi-Feinberg, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The AASM recommends adults try to aim for at least 7 hours of sleep and I often tell my patients that keeping a regular routine is best for your sleep and health,” she said in an interview.

Funding for the study was provided by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chung and Dr. Abassi-Feinberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Maintaining a regular healthy sleep schedule may help guard against premature death, new research suggests.

In a diverse group of older adults, those with regular and optimal sleep had about a 40% lower risk of dying of any cause during follow-up compared with peers who had irregular and insufficient sleep.

“If sleep were an 8-hour pill, it would be beneficial to take the full dose at regular times consistently,” lead researcher Joon Chung, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a news release.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Broad adverse health effects

“Evidence is mounting that irregular sleep is associated with pretty broad adverse health outcomes, most prominently cardiometabolic disease, obesity, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Chungsaid in an interview.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In the current study, the researchers estimated the association of regular sleep of optimal sleep duration with all-cause mortality using data from 1,759 adults the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Sleep Study.

Sleep regularity and duration were classified using 7 days of data gathered by wrist actigraphy. Adults were categorized as “regular-optimal” sleepers (n = 1,015) or “irregular-insufficient” sleepers (n = 744).

During 7 years of follow-up, 176 people died. In the fully adjusted model, the regular-optimal group had a 39% lower mortality risk compared with the irregular-insufficient sleep group (hazard ratio, 0.61;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.83). The findings were robust in sensitivity analyses.

The regular and optimal duration sleep pattern maps behaviorally to regular bed and wake times, suggesting potential health benefits of adherence to recommended sleep practices, the researchers noted.

“Results suggest benefits of expanding the public conversation on getting ‘a good night’s sleep’ and broadening this goal to getting many good nights of sleep, in a row, on weekdays and weekends,” Dr. Chung said in the release.

He further said that “getting adequate, regular sleep seems to be something that is good for all. I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t benefit.”

Fariha Abassi-Feinberg, MD, spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and sleep specialist with the Millennium Physician Group, Fort Myers, Fla., agreed.

“We know our bodies have an internal clock, known as the circadian rhythm, which regulates various biological processes, including sleep-wake cycles. Sticking to a consistent sleep schedule allows your body to align its natural rhythm with the external day-night cycle. This synchronization promotes better sleep quality and therefore better health,” said Dr. Abassi-Feinberg, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The AASM recommends adults try to aim for at least 7 hours of sleep and I often tell my patients that keeping a regular routine is best for your sleep and health,” she said in an interview.

Funding for the study was provided by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chung and Dr. Abassi-Feinberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Maintaining a regular healthy sleep schedule may help guard against premature death, new research suggests.

In a diverse group of older adults, those with regular and optimal sleep had about a 40% lower risk of dying of any cause during follow-up compared with peers who had irregular and insufficient sleep.

“If sleep were an 8-hour pill, it would be beneficial to take the full dose at regular times consistently,” lead researcher Joon Chung, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a news release.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Broad adverse health effects

“Evidence is mounting that irregular sleep is associated with pretty broad adverse health outcomes, most prominently cardiometabolic disease, obesity, and cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Chungsaid in an interview.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In the current study, the researchers estimated the association of regular sleep of optimal sleep duration with all-cause mortality using data from 1,759 adults the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Sleep Study.

Sleep regularity and duration were classified using 7 days of data gathered by wrist actigraphy. Adults were categorized as “regular-optimal” sleepers (n = 1,015) or “irregular-insufficient” sleepers (n = 744).

During 7 years of follow-up, 176 people died. In the fully adjusted model, the regular-optimal group had a 39% lower mortality risk compared with the irregular-insufficient sleep group (hazard ratio, 0.61;95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.83). The findings were robust in sensitivity analyses.

The regular and optimal duration sleep pattern maps behaviorally to regular bed and wake times, suggesting potential health benefits of adherence to recommended sleep practices, the researchers noted.

“Results suggest benefits of expanding the public conversation on getting ‘a good night’s sleep’ and broadening this goal to getting many good nights of sleep, in a row, on weekdays and weekends,” Dr. Chung said in the release.

He further said that “getting adequate, regular sleep seems to be something that is good for all. I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t benefit.”

Fariha Abassi-Feinberg, MD, spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and sleep specialist with the Millennium Physician Group, Fort Myers, Fla., agreed.

“We know our bodies have an internal clock, known as the circadian rhythm, which regulates various biological processes, including sleep-wake cycles. Sticking to a consistent sleep schedule allows your body to align its natural rhythm with the external day-night cycle. This synchronization promotes better sleep quality and therefore better health,” said Dr. Abassi-Feinberg, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The AASM recommends adults try to aim for at least 7 hours of sleep and I often tell my patients that keeping a regular routine is best for your sleep and health,” she said in an interview.

Funding for the study was provided by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Chung and Dr. Abassi-Feinberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Heather Woolery-Lloyd, MD, says she’s generally “risk averse,” but when it comes to superficial chemical peels, she’s in her comfort zone.

Superficial peeling is “one of the most common cosmetic procedures that I do,” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, director of the skin of color division in the dermatology department at the University of Miami, said at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium.

In her practice, she most commonly uses chemical peels to treat patients with hyperpigmentation and melasma, but she also uses this treatment for patients with textural issues, superficial acne scars, keratosis pilaris, acne on the face and trunk, photoaging, and actinic damage.

MedscapeLive!

Contraindications are an active bacterial infection, open wounds, and active herpes simplex virus. “If someone looks like they even have a remnant of a cold sore, I tell them to come back,” she said.

Setting expectations for patients is critical, Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said, as a series of superficial peels is needed before the desired results are evident.

The peel she uses most is salicylic acid, a beta-hydroxy acid, at a strength of 20%-30%. “It’s very effective on our acne patients,” she said at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLIVE! “If you’re just starting with peels, I think this is a very safe one. You don’t have to time it, and you don’t have to neutralize it,” and at lower concentrations, is “very safe.”

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd provided these other tips during her presentation:

• Even superficial peels can be uncomfortable, she noted, so she keeps a fan nearby to use when needed to help with discomfort.
• Find the peel you’re comfortable with, master that peel, and don’t jump from peel to peel. Get familiar with the side effects and how to predict results.
• Stop retinoids up to 7 days before a peel. Consider placing the patient on hydroquinone before the chemical peel to decrease the risk of hyperpigmentation.
• Before the procedure, prep the skin with acetone or alcohol. Applying petrolatum helps protect around the eyes, alar crease, and other sensitive areas, “or anywhere you’re concerned about the depth of the peel.”
• Application with rough gauze helps avoid the waste that comes with makeup sponges soaking up the product. It also helps add exfoliation.
• Have everything ready before starting the procedure, including (depending on the peel), a neutralizer or soapless cleanser. Although peels are generally safe, you want to be able to remove one quickly, if needed, without having to leave the room.
• Start with the lowest concentration (salicylic acid or glycolic acid) then titrate up. Ask patients about any reactions they experienced with the previous peel before making the decision on the next concentration.
• For a peel to treat hyperpigmentation, she recommends one peel about every 4 weeks for a series of 5-6 peels.
• After a peel, the patient should use a mineral sunscreen; chemical sunscreens will sting.

Know your comfort zone

Conference chair Pearl Grimes, MD, director of The Vitiligo & Pigmentation Institute of Southern California in Los Angeles, said superficial peels are best for dermatologists new to peeling until they gain comfort with experience.

Superficial and medium-depth peels work well for mild to moderate photoaging, she said at the meeting.

“We know that in darker skin we have more intrinsic aging rather than photoaging. We have more textural changes, hyperpigmentation,” Dr. Grimes said.

For Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, she said, “you can do superficial, medium, and deep peels.” For darker skin types, “I typically stay in the superficial, medium range.”

She said that she uses retinoids to exfoliate before a superficial peel but added, “you’ve got to stop them early because retinoids can make a superficial peel a medium-depth peel.”

Taking photos is important before any procedure, she said, as is spending time with patients clarifying their outcome expectations.

“I love peeling,” Dr. Grimes said. “And it’s cost effective. If you don’t want to spend a ton of money, it’s amazing what you can achieve with chemical peeling.”

When asked by a member of the audience whether they avoid superficial peels in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, both Dr. Woolery-Lloyd and Dr. Grimes said they do avoid them in those patients.

Dr. Grimes said she tells her patients, especially in the first trimester, “I am the most conservative woman on the planet. I do nothing during the first trimester.”

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd has been a speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, Loreal and EPI, and has done research for Pfizer, Galderma, Allergan, Arcutis, Vyne, Merz, and Eirion. She has been on advisory boards for Loreal, Allergan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfize,r and Merz. Dr. Grimes reports grant/research Support from Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, LASEROPTEK, L’Oréal USA, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, skinbetter science, and Versicolor Technologies, and is on the speakers bureau/receives honoraria for non-CME for Incyte and Procter & Gamble; and is a consultant or is on the advisory board for L’Oréal USA and Procter & Gamble. She has stock options in Versicolor Technologies.

CHICAGO – Heather Woolery-Lloyd, MD, says she’s generally “risk averse,” but when it comes to superficial chemical peels, she’s in her comfort zone.

Superficial peeling is “one of the most common cosmetic procedures that I do,” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, director of the skin of color division in the dermatology department at the University of Miami, said at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium.

In her practice, she most commonly uses chemical peels to treat patients with hyperpigmentation and melasma, but she also uses this treatment for patients with textural issues, superficial acne scars, keratosis pilaris, acne on the face and trunk, photoaging, and actinic damage.

MedscapeLive!

Contraindications are an active bacterial infection, open wounds, and active herpes simplex virus. “If someone looks like they even have a remnant of a cold sore, I tell them to come back,” she said.

Setting expectations for patients is critical, Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said, as a series of superficial peels is needed before the desired results are evident.

The peel she uses most is salicylic acid, a beta-hydroxy acid, at a strength of 20%-30%. “It’s very effective on our acne patients,” she said at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLIVE! “If you’re just starting with peels, I think this is a very safe one. You don’t have to time it, and you don’t have to neutralize it,” and at lower concentrations, is “very safe.”

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd provided these other tips during her presentation:

• Even superficial peels can be uncomfortable, she noted, so she keeps a fan nearby to use when needed to help with discomfort.
• Find the peel you’re comfortable with, master that peel, and don’t jump from peel to peel. Get familiar with the side effects and how to predict results.
• Stop retinoids up to 7 days before a peel. Consider placing the patient on hydroquinone before the chemical peel to decrease the risk of hyperpigmentation.
• Before the procedure, prep the skin with acetone or alcohol. Applying petrolatum helps protect around the eyes, alar crease, and other sensitive areas, “or anywhere you’re concerned about the depth of the peel.”
• Application with rough gauze helps avoid the waste that comes with makeup sponges soaking up the product. It also helps add exfoliation.
• Have everything ready before starting the procedure, including (depending on the peel), a neutralizer or soapless cleanser. Although peels are generally safe, you want to be able to remove one quickly, if needed, without having to leave the room.
• Start with the lowest concentration (salicylic acid or glycolic acid) then titrate up. Ask patients about any reactions they experienced with the previous peel before making the decision on the next concentration.
• For a peel to treat hyperpigmentation, she recommends one peel about every 4 weeks for a series of 5-6 peels.
• After a peel, the patient should use a mineral sunscreen; chemical sunscreens will sting.

Know your comfort zone

Conference chair Pearl Grimes, MD, director of The Vitiligo & Pigmentation Institute of Southern California in Los Angeles, said superficial peels are best for dermatologists new to peeling until they gain comfort with experience.

Superficial and medium-depth peels work well for mild to moderate photoaging, she said at the meeting.

“We know that in darker skin we have more intrinsic aging rather than photoaging. We have more textural changes, hyperpigmentation,” Dr. Grimes said.

For Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, she said, “you can do superficial, medium, and deep peels.” For darker skin types, “I typically stay in the superficial, medium range.”

She said that she uses retinoids to exfoliate before a superficial peel but added, “you’ve got to stop them early because retinoids can make a superficial peel a medium-depth peel.”

Taking photos is important before any procedure, she said, as is spending time with patients clarifying their outcome expectations.

“I love peeling,” Dr. Grimes said. “And it’s cost effective. If you don’t want to spend a ton of money, it’s amazing what you can achieve with chemical peeling.”

When asked by a member of the audience whether they avoid superficial peels in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, both Dr. Woolery-Lloyd and Dr. Grimes said they do avoid them in those patients.

Dr. Grimes said she tells her patients, especially in the first trimester, “I am the most conservative woman on the planet. I do nothing during the first trimester.”

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd has been a speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, Loreal and EPI, and has done research for Pfizer, Galderma, Allergan, Arcutis, Vyne, Merz, and Eirion. She has been on advisory boards for Loreal, Allergan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfize,r and Merz. Dr. Grimes reports grant/research Support from Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, LASEROPTEK, L’Oréal USA, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, skinbetter science, and Versicolor Technologies, and is on the speakers bureau/receives honoraria for non-CME for Incyte and Procter & Gamble; and is a consultant or is on the advisory board for L’Oréal USA and Procter & Gamble. She has stock options in Versicolor Technologies.

CHICAGO – Heather Woolery-Lloyd, MD, says she’s generally “risk averse,” but when it comes to superficial chemical peels, she’s in her comfort zone.

Superficial peeling is “one of the most common cosmetic procedures that I do,” Dr. Woolery-Lloyd, director of the skin of color division in the dermatology department at the University of Miami, said at the Pigmentary Disorders Exchange Symposium.

In her practice, she most commonly uses chemical peels to treat patients with hyperpigmentation and melasma, but she also uses this treatment for patients with textural issues, superficial acne scars, keratosis pilaris, acne on the face and trunk, photoaging, and actinic damage.

MedscapeLive!

Contraindications are an active bacterial infection, open wounds, and active herpes simplex virus. “If someone looks like they even have a remnant of a cold sore, I tell them to come back,” she said.

Setting expectations for patients is critical, Dr. Woolery-Lloyd said, as a series of superficial peels is needed before the desired results are evident.

The peel she uses most is salicylic acid, a beta-hydroxy acid, at a strength of 20%-30%. “It’s very effective on our acne patients,” she said at the meeting, provided by MedscapeLIVE! “If you’re just starting with peels, I think this is a very safe one. You don’t have to time it, and you don’t have to neutralize it,” and at lower concentrations, is “very safe.”

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd provided these other tips during her presentation:

• Even superficial peels can be uncomfortable, she noted, so she keeps a fan nearby to use when needed to help with discomfort.
• Find the peel you’re comfortable with, master that peel, and don’t jump from peel to peel. Get familiar with the side effects and how to predict results.
• Stop retinoids up to 7 days before a peel. Consider placing the patient on hydroquinone before the chemical peel to decrease the risk of hyperpigmentation.
• Before the procedure, prep the skin with acetone or alcohol. Applying petrolatum helps protect around the eyes, alar crease, and other sensitive areas, “or anywhere you’re concerned about the depth of the peel.”
• Application with rough gauze helps avoid the waste that comes with makeup sponges soaking up the product. It also helps add exfoliation.
• Have everything ready before starting the procedure, including (depending on the peel), a neutralizer or soapless cleanser. Although peels are generally safe, you want to be able to remove one quickly, if needed, without having to leave the room.
• Start with the lowest concentration (salicylic acid or glycolic acid) then titrate up. Ask patients about any reactions they experienced with the previous peel before making the decision on the next concentration.
• For a peel to treat hyperpigmentation, she recommends one peel about every 4 weeks for a series of 5-6 peels.
• After a peel, the patient should use a mineral sunscreen; chemical sunscreens will sting.

Know your comfort zone

Conference chair Pearl Grimes, MD, director of The Vitiligo & Pigmentation Institute of Southern California in Los Angeles, said superficial peels are best for dermatologists new to peeling until they gain comfort with experience.

Superficial and medium-depth peels work well for mild to moderate photoaging, she said at the meeting.

“We know that in darker skin we have more intrinsic aging rather than photoaging. We have more textural changes, hyperpigmentation,” Dr. Grimes said.

For Fitzpatrick skin types I-III, she said, “you can do superficial, medium, and deep peels.” For darker skin types, “I typically stay in the superficial, medium range.”

She said that she uses retinoids to exfoliate before a superficial peel but added, “you’ve got to stop them early because retinoids can make a superficial peel a medium-depth peel.”

Taking photos is important before any procedure, she said, as is spending time with patients clarifying their outcome expectations.

“I love peeling,” Dr. Grimes said. “And it’s cost effective. If you don’t want to spend a ton of money, it’s amazing what you can achieve with chemical peeling.”

When asked by a member of the audience whether they avoid superficial peels in women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, both Dr. Woolery-Lloyd and Dr. Grimes said they do avoid them in those patients.

Dr. Grimes said she tells her patients, especially in the first trimester, “I am the most conservative woman on the planet. I do nothing during the first trimester.”

Dr. Woolery-Lloyd has been a speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, Loreal and EPI, and has done research for Pfizer, Galderma, Allergan, Arcutis, Vyne, Merz, and Eirion. She has been on advisory boards for Loreal, Allergan, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfize,r and Merz. Dr. Grimes reports grant/research Support from Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, LASEROPTEK, L’Oréal USA, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, skinbetter science, and Versicolor Technologies, and is on the speakers bureau/receives honoraria for non-CME for Incyte and Procter & Gamble; and is a consultant or is on the advisory board for L’Oréal USA and Procter & Gamble. She has stock options in Versicolor Technologies.

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Rheumatic disease is not considered a significant risk factor for long COVID, according to the findings of a Dutch prospective cohort study presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (iRD) report symptoms resembling long COVID, the data suggest that many of these symptoms can be attributed to the underlying rheumatic disease. “Overall, we find the data quite reassuring,” said Laura Boekel, Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam University Medical Center.

The results were also published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

The risk of developing long COVID after infection with the Omicron variant appeared to be higher in patients with iRD, with 21% meeting the criteria set by the World Health Organization, compared with 13% of healthy individuals (odds ratio, 1.58; P = .037). Fatigue and loss of fitness were the most common long COVID symptoms reported by both iRD patients and controls. However, the difference in risk decreased after accounting for factors that are significantly associated with an increased risk for long COVID, such as body mass index and the severity of the acute COVID-19 infection (adjusted OR, 1.46; P = .081). The duration of symptoms did not show a statistically significant difference.

Kim Lauper, MD, University of Geneva, who chaired the session in which Ms. Boekel reported the study, said in an interview that the data should be interpreted with caution. “The data demonstrate that rheumatic disease itself is not a risk factor for long COVID. However, patients with rheumatic diseases are at a higher risk of severe disease, which in turn increases the likelihood of long COVID. Therefore, as a population, these patients are more susceptible to long COVID overall.”

Moreover, irrespective of their previous COVID-19 infection status, iRD patients often exhibit symptoms similar to those of long COVID even without a prior COVID-19 infection. (There was no history of COVID-19 in 21% of iRD patients vs. 11% of controls.) This suggests that some of the reported long COVID symptoms may actually be clinical manifestations of the underlying rheumatic disease, thereby complicating the diagnosis of long COVID in this population. The study employed the WHO definition of long COVID, which includes persistent symptoms lasting at least 8 weeks, beginning within 3 months of a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that cannot be attributed to an alternative diagnosis. However, the data presented in Milan indicate that the WHO definition “is not well suited for patients with iRD due to significant overlap in symptoms and features,” Ms. Boekel concluded.

The cases of Omicron COVID-19 were identified during Jan. 1–April 25, 2022, among iRD patients recruited from the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center. The population with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection during this period was monitored for long COVID. The total number of patients included in the study consisted of 77 iRD patients and 23 healthy controls. When asked about the potential risk of selection bias in the survey, Ms. Boekel stated that only approximately 8% of participants declined to respond, and the nonresponders were comparable with the respondents. She concluded that “the risk of selection bias is minimal.”

In an editorial published in The Lancet Rheumatology, Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, Cleveland Clinic, provided his insights on the findings. He emphasized that, “at present, long COVID remains an important reality that significantly impacts the lives of millions of individuals, yet it remains incompletely defined. ... These limitations in defining cases should not in any way undermine the experiences of those suffering from long COVID. Instead, they should serve as a reminder that, at this stage of the pandemic, we unfortunately still lack validated classification criteria for long COVID. It is crucial to include non–SARS-CoV-2–infected controls in all studies to further enhance our understanding.”

Ms. Boekel and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lauper and Dr. Calabrese, reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Insufficient blood pressure measurement during medical consultation, use of an inadequate technique for its determination, and lack of validated automatic sphygmomanometers are three problems that convergently complicate the diagnosis and control of arterial hypertension in the Americas, a silent disease that affects 180 million people in the region and is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, said the Pan American Health Organization.

Jarbas Barbosa, MD, MPH, PhD, director of PAHO, said in an interview: “We don’t have specific data for each of these scenarios, but unfortunately, all three doubtless work together to make the situation worse.

“Often, the staff members at our primary care clinics are not prepared to diagnose and treat hypertension, because there aren’t national protocols to raise awareness and prepare them to provide this care to the correct standard. Also, they are often unqualified to take blood pressure readings properly,” he added.

This concern is reflected in the theme the organization chose for World Hypertension Day, which was observed on May 17: Measure your blood pressure accurately, control it, live longer! “We shouldn’t underestimate the importance of taking blood pressure,” warned Silvana Luciani, chief of PAHO’s noncommunicable diseases, violence, and injury prevention unit. But, the experts stressed, it must be done correctly.
 

Time no problem

It’s important to raise awareness of the value of blood pressure measurement for the general population. However, as multiple studies have shown, one barrier to detecting and controlling hypertension is that doctors and other health care professionals measure blood pressure less frequently in clinic than expected, or they use inappropriate techniques or obsolete or uncalibrated measurement devices.

“The importance of clinic blood pressure measurement has been recognized for many decades, but adherence to guidelines on proper, standardized blood pressure measurement remains uncommon in clinical practice,” concluded a consensus document signed by 25 experts from 13 institutions in the United States, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, Belgium, and Greece.

The first problem lies in the low quantity of measurements. A recent study in Argentina of nearly 3,000 visits to the doctor’s office at nine health care centers showed that doctors took blood pressure readings in only once in every seven encounters. Even cardiologists, the specialists with the best performance, did so only half of the time.

“Several factors can come into play: lack of awareness, medical inertia, or lack of appropriate equipment. But it is not for lack of time. How long does it take to take blood pressure three times within a 1-minute interval, with the patient seated and their back supported, as indicated? Four minutes. That’s not very much,” said Judith Zilberman, MD, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Zilberman leads the department of hypertension and the women’s cardiovascular disease area at the Argerich Hospital in Buenos Aires, and is the former chair of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension.

Patricio López-Jaramillo, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the greatest obstacle is the lack of awareness among physicians and other health care staff about the importance of taking proper blood pressure measurements. Dr. López-Jaramillo is president and scientific director of the MASIRA Research Institute at the University of Santander in Bucaramanga, Colombia, and first author of the Manual Práctico de Diagnóstico y Manejo de la Hipertensión Arterial (Practice Guidelines for Diagnosing and Managing Hypertension), published by the Latin American Hypertension Society.

“Medical schools are also responsible for this. They go over this topic very superficially during undergraduate and, even worse, postgraduate training. The lack of time to take correct measurements, or the lack of appropriate instruments, is secondary to this lack of awareness among most health care staff members,” added Dr. López-Jaramillo, who is one of the researchers of the PURE epidemiologic study. Since 2002, it has followed a cohort of 225,000 participants from 27 high-, mid-, and low-income countries.

Dr. Zilberman added that it would be good practice for all primary care physicians to take blood pressure readings regardless of the reason for the visit and whether patients have been diagnosed with hypertension or not. “If a woman goes to her gynecologist because she wants to get pregnant, her blood pressure should also be taken! And any other specialist should interview the patient, ascertain her history, what medications she’s on, and then ask if her blood pressure has been taken recently,” she recommended.
 

Measure well

The second factor to consider is that a correct technique should be used to take blood pressure readings in the doctor’s office or clinic so as not to produce inaccurate results that could lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or a poor assessment of the patient’s response to prescribed treatments. An observational study performed in Uruguay in 2017 showed that only 5% of 302 blood pressure measurements followed appropriate procedures.

A new fact sheet from the PAHO lists the following eight requirements for obtaining an accurate reading: don’t have a conversation, support the arm at heart level, put the cuff on a bare arm, use the correct cuff size, support the feet, keep the legs uncrossed, ensure the patient has an empty bladder, and support the back.

Though most guidelines recommend taking three readings, the “pragmatic” focus proposed in the international consensus accepts at least two readings separated by a minimum of 30 seconds. The two readings should then be averaged out. There is evidence that simplified protocols can be used, at least for population screening.

The authors of the new document also recommend preparing the patient before taking the measurement. The patient should be asked not to smoke, exercise, or consume alcohol or caffeine for at least 30 minutes beforehand. He or she should rest for a period of 3-5 minutes without speaking or being spoken to before the measurement is taken.

Lastly, clinically validated automated measurement devices should be used, as called for by the PAHO HEARTS initiative in the Americas. “The sphygmomanometer or classic aneroid tensiometer for the auscultatory method, which is still used way too often at doctor’s office visits in the region, has many weaknesses – not only the device itself but also the way it’s used (human error). This produces a rounded, approximate reading,” stressed Dr. Zilberman.

Automated devices also minimize interactions with the patient by reducing distractions during the preparation and measurement phases and freeing up time for the health care professional. “To [check for a] fever, we use the appropriate thermometer in the appropriate location. We should do the same for blood pressure,” she added.

The STRIDE-BP database, which is affiliated with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League, contains an updated list of validated devices for measuring blood pressure.

The signers of the consensus likewise recognized that, beyond taking blood pressure measurements during office visits, the best measurements are those taken at home outside the context of medical care (doctor’s office or clinic) and that the same recommendations are directly applicable. “Few diseases can be detected so easily as with a simple at-home assessment performed by the individual himself or herself. If after three consecutive measurements, readings above 140/90 mm Hg are obtained, the individual should see the doctor to set up a comprehensive treatment program,” said Pablo Rodríguez, MD, secretary of the Argentinian Society of Hypertension. From now through September 14 (Day for Patients With Hypertension), the society is conducting a campaign to take blood pressure measurements at different locations across the country.

Dr. Zilberman and Dr. López-Jiménez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.

Patients with gout may have smaller brain volumes and higher brain iron markers than people without gout, and also be more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease, probable essential tremor, and dementia, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

“We were surprised about the regions of the brain affected by gout, several of which are important for motor function. The other intriguing finding was that the risk of dementia amongst gout patients was strongly time-dependent: highest in the first 3 years after their gout diagnosis,” lead study author Anya Topiwala, BMBCh, DPhil, said in an interview.

“Our combination of traditional and genetic approaches increases the confidence that gout is causing the brain findings,” said Dr. Topiwala, a clinical research fellow and consultant psychiatrist in the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, England.

“We suggest that clinicians be vigilant for cognitive and motor problems after gout diagnosis, particularly in the early stages,” she added.


 

Links between gout and neurodegenerative diseases debated in earlier studies

Gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, affects around 1%-4% of people, the authors wrote, with monosodium urate crystal deposits causing acute flares of pain and swelling in joints and periarticular tissues.

Whether and how gout may affect the brain has been debated in the literature. Gout and hyperuricemia have been linked with elevated stroke risk; and although observational studies have linked hyperuricemia with lower dementia risk, especially Alzheimer’s disease, Mendelian randomization studies have had conflicting results in Alzheimer’s disease.
 

A novel approach that analyzes brain structure and genetics

In a study published in Nature Communications, Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues combined observational and Mendelian randomization techniques to explore relationships between gout and neurodegenerative diseases. They analyzed data from over 303,000 volunteer participants between 40 and 69 years of age recruited between 2006 and 2010 to contribute their detailed genetic and health information to the U.K. Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database and research resource.

Patients with gout tended to be older and male. At baseline, all participants’ serum urate levels were measured, and 30.8% of patients with gout reported that they currently used urate-lowering therapy.
 

MRI shows brain changes in patients with gout

In what the authors said is the first investigation of neuroimaging markers in patients with gout, they compared differences in gray matter volumes found in the 1,165 participants with gout and the 32,202 controls without gout who had MRI data.

They found no marked sex differences in associations. Urate was inversely linked with global brain volume and with gray and white matter volumes, and gout appeared to age global gray matter by 2 years.

Patients with gout and higher urate showed significant differences in regional gray matter volumes, especially in the cerebellum, pons, and midbrain, as well as subcortical differences in the nucleus accumbens, putamen, and caudate. They also showed significant differences in white matter tract microstructure in the fornix.

Patients with gout were more likely to develop dementia (average hazard ratio [HR] over study = 1.60), especially in the first 3 years after gout diagnosis (HR = 7.40). They were also at higher risk for vascular dementia (average HR = 2.41), compared with all-cause dementia, but not for Alzheimer’s disease (average HR = 1.62).

In asymptomatic participants though, urate and dementia were inversely linked (HR = 0.85), with no time dependence.

Gout was linked with higher incidence of Parkinson’s disease (HR = 1.43) and probable essential tremor (HR = 6.75). In asymptomatic participants, urate and Parkinson’s disease (HR = 0.89), but not probable essential tremor, were inversely linked.
 

Genetic analyses reinforce MRI results

Using Mendelian randomization estimates, the authors found that genetic links generally reflected their observational findings. Both genetically predicted gout and serum urate were significantly linked with regional gray matter volumes, including cerebellar, midbrain, pons, and brainstem.

They also found significant links with higher magnetic susceptibility in the putamen and caudate, markers of higher iron. But while genetically predicted gout was significantly linked with global gray matter volume, urate was not.

In males, but not in females, urate was positively linked with alcohol intake and lower socioeconomic status.

Dr. Topiwala acknowledged several limitations to the study, writing that “the results from the volunteer participants may not apply to other populations; the cross-sectional serum urate measurements may not reflect chronic exposure; and Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor may have been diagnostically confounded.”
 

A novel approach that suggests further related research

Asked to comment on the study, Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, called its novel use of neuroimaging interesting.

Dr. Khanna, who was not involved in the study, said she would like to know more about the role that horizontal pleiotropy – one genetic variant having independent effects on multiple traits – plays in this disease process, and about the impact of the antioxidative properties of urate in maintaining neuroprotection.

“[The] U.K. Biobank is an excellent database to look at questions of association,” John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, MPH, MBA, professor and clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Early diagnosis benefits patients

Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald joined the authors in advising doctors to monitor their gout patients for cognitive and motor symptoms of neurodegenerative disease.

“It is clearly important to pay close attention to the neurologic exam and history in gout, especially because it is a disease of the aging population,” Dr. Khanna advised. “Addressing dementia when gout is diagnosed can lead to prompt mitigation strategies that can hugely impact patients.”

Dr. Topiwala and her colleagues would like to investigate why the dementia risk was time-dependent. “Is this because of the acute inflammatory response in gout, or could it just be that patients with gout visit their doctors more frequently, so any cognitive problems are picked up sooner?” she asked.

The authors, and Dr. Khanna and Dr. FitzGerald, report no relevant financial relationships. The Wellcome Trust; the U.K. Medical Research Council; the European Commission Horizon 2020 research and innovation program; the British Heart Foundation; the U.S. National Institutes of Health; the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded the study.