Clinician Reviews

TOPLINE:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An impaired central sensitivity to thyroid hormone may be associated with an increased risk for death in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and normal thyroid function.

METHODOLOGY:

• Previous studies have shown that abnormal levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) are associated with a higher mortality risk in patients with CKD, but whether the risk extends to those with normal thyroid function remains controversial.
• Researchers investigated the association between central sensitivity to thyroid hormone and the risk for all-cause mortality in 1303 euthyroid patients with CKD (mean age, 60 years; 59% women) from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database (2007-2012).
• All participants had CKD stages I-IV, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² and/or a urinary albumin to urinary creatinine ratio ≥ 30 mg/g.
• The central sensitivity to thyroid hormone was primarily evaluated using a new central thyroid hormone resistance index, the Thyroid Feedback Quantile–based Index (TFQI), using free thyroxine and TSH concentrations.
• The participants were followed for a median duration of 115 months, during which 503 died.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with CKD who died during the follow-up period had a significantly higher TFQI (P < .001) than those who survived.
• The rates of all-cause mortality increased from 26.61% in the lowest TFQI tertile to 40.89% in the highest tertile (P = .001).
• A per unit increase in the TFQI was associated with a 40% increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79).
• This association between TFQI level and all-cause mortality persisted in all subgroups stratified by age, gender, race, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and CKD stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrates that impaired sensitivity to thyroid hormone might be associated with all-cause mortality in CKD patients with normal thyroid function, independent of other traditional risk factors and comorbidities,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Qichao Yang and Ru Dong, Department of Endocrinology, Affiliated Wujin Hospital of Jiangsu University, Changzhou, China, and was published online on August 6, 2024, in BMC Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Thyroid function was measured only at baseline, and the changes in thyroid function over time were not measured. The study excluded people on thyroid hormone replacement therapy but did not consider other medication use that might have affected thyroid function, such as beta-blockers, steroids, and amiodarone. Thyroid-related antibodies, metabolic syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease were not included in the analysis as possible confounding factors. The US-based sample requires further validation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Changzhou Health Commission. The authors declared no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

New updated COVID vaccines are now available, but who can get them, who should get them, and when? Two updated mRNA COVID vaccines, one by Moderna and the other by Pfizer, have been authorized or approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for those aged 6 months or older.

Both vaccines target Omicron’s KP.2 strain of the JN.1 lineage. An updated protein-based version by Novavax, also directed at JN.1, has been authorized, but only for those aged 12 years or older. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a dose of the 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This includes people who have never been vaccinated against COVID, those who have been vaccinated, as well as people with previous COVID infection. 

The big question is when, and FDA and CDC have set some parameters. For mRNA updated vaccines, patients should wait at least 2 months after their last dose of any COVID vaccine before getting a dose of the updated vaccine.

If the patient has recently had COVID, the wait time is even longer: Patients can wait 3 months after a COVID infection to be vaccinated, but they don’t have to. FDA’s instructions for the Novavax version are not as straightforward. People can get an updated Novavax dose at least 2 months after their last mRNA COVID vaccine dose, or at least 2 months after completing a Novavax two-dose primary series. Those two Novavax doses should be given at least 3 weeks apart. 

Patients can personalize their vaccine plan. They will have the greatest protection in the first few weeks to months after a vaccine, after which antibodies tend to wane. It is a good idea to time vaccination so that protection peaks at big events like weddings and major meetings.

If patients decide to wait, they run the risk of getting a COVID infection. Also keep in mind which variants are circulating and the amount of local activity. Right now, there is a lot of COVID going around, and most of it is related to JN.1, the target of this year’s updated vaccine. If patients decide to wait, they should avoid crowded indoor settings or wear a high-quality mask for some protection. 

Here’s the bottom line: Most people (more than 95%) have some degree of COVID protection from previous infection, vaccination, or both. But if they haven’t recently had COVID infection and didn’t get a dose of last year’s vaccine, they are sitting ducks for getting sick without updated protection. The best way to stay well is to get a dose of the updated vaccine as soon as possible. This is especially true for those in high-risk groups or who are near someone who is high risk. 

Two thirds of COVID hospitalizations are in those aged 65 or older. Hospitalization rates are highest for those aged 75 or older and among infants under 6 months of age. These babies are too young to be vaccinated, but maternal vaccination during pregnancy and breastfeeding can help protect them. 

We’re still seeing racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-related hospitalizations, which are highest among American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Black populations. People with immunocompromising conditions, those with chronic medical conditions, and people living in long-term care facilities are also at greater risk. Unlike last year, additional mRNA doses are not recommended for those aged 65 or older at this time, but that could change.

Since 2020, we’ve come a long way in our fight against COVID, but the battle is still on. In 2023, nearly a million people were hospitalized from COVID. More than 75,000 died. COVID vaccines help protect us from severe disease, hospitalization, and death. 

Let’s face it — we all have booster fatigue, but COVID is now endemic. It’s here to stay, and it’s much safer to update antibody protection with vaccination than with infection. Another benefit of getting vaccinated is that it decreases the chance of getting long COVID. The uptake of last year’s COVID vaccine was abysmal; only about 23% of adults and 14% of children received it.

But this is a new year and a new vaccine. Please make sure your patients understand that the virus has changed a lot. Antibodies we built from previous infection and previous vaccination don’t work as well against these new variants. Antibody levels wane over time, so even if they missed the last few vaccine doses without getting sick, they really should consider getting a dose of this new vaccine. The 2024-2025 updated COVID vaccine is the best way to catch up, update their immunity, and keep them protected. 

Furthermore, we are now entering respiratory virus season, which means we need to think about, recommend, and administer three shots if indicated: COVID, flu, and RSV. Now is the time. Patients can get all three at the same time, in the same visit, if they choose to do so. 

Your recommendation as a physician is powerful. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider recommendation are more likely to get vaccinated.

Dr. Fryhofer is an adjunct clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. She reported conflicts of interest with the American Medical Association, the Medical Association of Atlanta, the American College of Physicians, and Medscape.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

A so-called “oatzempic” diet has been bouncing around the internet posing as a cheap — and available — weight loss alternative to Ozempic.

Fans of the diet, made trendy by TikTok postings and a clever name, claim that an oat-based smoothie helps people quickly shed lots of weight. The smoothie is made by blending 1/2 cup of oats, 1 cup of water, a squeeze of lime, and maybe a dash of cinnamon or other flavoring agents, typically as the first meal of the day, often after fasting, followed by normal meals.

Despite the hype, the oatzempic drink is a far cry from Ozempic (semaglutide), the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) medication the Food and Drug Administration has approved only for type 2 diabetes management but used off label for weight loss.

So how do pulverized oats stack up against prescription-based GLP-1s? According to two nutrition experts, they’re not as effective as some TikTok influencers claim. And in people with diabetes, the diet can be dangerous.
 

Nutritionists Answer Questions on Oatzempic

Caroline West Passerrello, EdD, RDN, LDN, an instructor and community coordinator in the School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Emma Laing, PhD, RDN, LD, a clinical professor and director of dietetics in the College of Family and Consumer Sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, talked about this fad in emails.

Can the ‘oatzempic’ diet help people lose weight?

Dr. Passerrello: Oats are particularly high in soluble fiber, and high-fiber foods can increase the natural production of GLPs. But studies are mixed on whether this happens when eating oats.

The high content of soluble beta-glucan fiber in oats and the appetite-suppressing citric acid in lime can potentially promote decreased appetite and increased satiety. But a bowl of oatmeal, though not as trendy, will probably produce the same results.

Is the oatzempic diet safe for people with type 2 diabetes?

Dr. Laing: This diet has the potential to cause harm. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. Rapid weight loss is unsustainable and can be harmful, and frequent spikes in blood sugar can harm adults and children with diabetes. So the oatzempic diet’s safety depends on the rate of weight loss and the effect on blood sugar. While it provides beta-glucan from oats and citric acid from lime juice, it is missing protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content and stabilize blood sugar.

Maintaining relatively consistent, normal-range blood glucose concentrations is key for managing diabetes and lowering the risks for other health complications. Carbohydrate sources consumed on their own can produce greater blood sugar fluctuations than when combined with proteins and fats, which slow carbohydrate digestion speed. So pairing oats with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats, and protein sources enhances the flavor, texture, and nutrient composition of the dish and can help slow the postprandial rise in blood glucose.

In the long term, any restrictive fad diet likely cannot be sustained and increases the risk for malnutrition, metabolic rate slowing to conserve energy, depression, social isolation, or eating disorder.

Additional considerations apply to children, with or without diabetes. Restrictive, extreme diets that promise quick results typically “work” by promoting body water and muscle mass losses. Such diets are not only contraindicated in children, who are undergoing rapid growth and development, but also unsustainable and can lead to physical and psychological problems that carry into adulthood.

What strategies and tactics can physicians use to effectively communicate with their patients about safe and effective diets?

Dr. Laing: Encourage patients to be skeptical of social media trends that seem too good to be true. Many [social media] creators lack the education or professional credentials to offer sound nutrition advice, and their posts could do harm. Explain that individual nutrition needs differ considerably based on age, activity patterns, health conditions, and medications, and one person’s way of eating or success is often not realistic for someone else.

Encourage open dialogue and provide nonjudgmental advice. If the taste of oatzempic intrigues patients, there is likely no harm in experimenting. Work on ensuring their meals are adequate in calories and contain sources of protein and healthy fats to prevent spikes in blood glucose. It’s crucial to communicate that weight loss doesn’t always equate with improved health.

Sharing information from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Diabetes Association can equip patients with tools they can implement under their clinician’s guidance. A provider’s greatest ally in diabetes care is a registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) who is a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist. RDNs will determine specific energy and nutrient needs and provide medical nutrition therapy such as carbohydrate counting, simplified meal plans, healthy food choices, exchange lists, and behavior strategies to help patients manage their diabetes. Many insurance plans cover these services.

What additional comments would you like to share with clinicians whose patients may ask them about the oatzempic diet?

Dr. Passerrello: What we do consistently matters. If your patient likes the taste of oatzempic in one meal a day, it’s a way to get more oats into their diet, if they focus their other meals on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, lean protein, and unsaturated fats.

Diets are out, and sustainable dietary patterns are in. Diets are one-size-fits-all, whereas a sustainable dietary pattern is individualized based on a person’s goals, medical history, taste preferences, budget, and lifestyle. Visit MyPlate.gov or work with an RDN [visit https://www.eatright.org/find-a-nutrition-expert to find nutritionists near your patients] to determine what a sustainable dietary pattern looks like.

What do clinicians need to know about claims on social media that a related drink — ‘ricezempic’ — aids weight loss?

Dr. Laing: Ricezempic promoters claim that drinking the beverage — typically made by soaking 1/2 cup of uncooked white rice in 1 cup of water and the juice from half a lime, then discarding the rice and drinking the liquid before breakfast — will lead to weight loss because the strained water provides a small dose of resistant starch, which is a source of prebiotics. Studies have shown that ingesting prebiotics may help lower blood cholesterol, improve blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, and benefit digestive function; however, more research is needed to determine specifics and if prebiotics are proven for weight loss.

Does ricezempic work?

Dr. Laing: There is no evidence that this concoction provides the same outcomes as GLP-1 agonists. The diet and the drug are not similar in mechanism of action or strength of scientific evidence to support their role in diabetes and weight management. Even if ricezempic provides a small amount of resistant starch and hydration from the rice water and citric acid from the lime juice, it is missing fiber, protein, healthy fats, and other vitamins and minerals that enhance the nutrient content of a meal or snack and stabilize blood sugar.

What advice do you have for clinicians whose patients with diabetes ask them about ricezempic?

Dr. Laing: I would not suggest that patients rely on ricezempic to support their health. There is no scientific evidence to show that people will lose weight in the short or long term by drinking ricezempic before a meal (or as a meal replacement).

If your patients are aiming to increase their intake of prebiotics, they are naturally found in various vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and seeds and in yogurt and high-fiber breads and cereals. A nutritious eating pattern that includes these foods is most beneficial for health.

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

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Statin usage in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is associated with a lower long-term risk for all-cause mortality, liver-related events, and progression of liver stiffness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although many patients with MASLD have indications for statins, including cardiovascular disease, they are not widely used owing to concerns about possible liver damage and muscle weakness.
• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to evaluate the long-term effects of statin use in 7988 patients (mean age, 53 years; 58.2% women) with MASLD who underwent at least two vibration-controlled transient elastography exams. The study involved 16 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
• Patients were classified into those with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD; liver stiffness measurement ≥ 10 kPa) and those without cACLD (liver stiffness measurement < 10 kPa). At baseline, 17% of patients had cACLD.
• Statin prescriptions included simvastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, and pitavastatin. At baseline, 40.5% of patients used statins.
• The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality and liver-related events, including cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in liver stiffness assessed over a median follow-up duration of 4.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Statin usage was associated with a 76.7% lower risk for all-cause mortality and a 62% lower risk of liver-related events than non-use (both P < .001).
• Statin use also was associated with a 46% and 55% lower risk for liver stiffness progression in the cACLD and non-cACLD groups, respectively, than non-use (both P < .001).
• No significant association was found between statin use and liver stiffness regression.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this cohort study suggest that statin usage may help reduce CVD [cardiovascular disease] morbidity and mortality rates and slow down liver stiffness progression in both cACLD and non-cALCD patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Xiao-Dong Zhou, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

The assessment of patients at different intervals may have affected the interpretation of the data. The median follow-up period may be considered short for assessing the progression of CLD. Additionally, residual confounding in statin users could have led to an overestimation of the benefits of statins.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and National Key R&D Program of China. Some authors reported receiving personal fees, consulting fees, speaker bureau fees, grants, nonfinancial support, and honoraria for lectures and travel expenses and owning stock options with pharmaceutical and medical device companies outside of the submitted work. Two researchers were employed by Echosens during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Statin usage in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is associated with a lower long-term risk for all-cause mortality, liver-related events, and progression of liver stiffness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although many patients with MASLD have indications for statins, including cardiovascular disease, they are not widely used owing to concerns about possible liver damage and muscle weakness.
• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to evaluate the long-term effects of statin use in 7988 patients (mean age, 53 years; 58.2% women) with MASLD who underwent at least two vibration-controlled transient elastography exams. The study involved 16 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
• Patients were classified into those with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD; liver stiffness measurement ≥ 10 kPa) and those without cACLD (liver stiffness measurement < 10 kPa). At baseline, 17% of patients had cACLD.
• Statin prescriptions included simvastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, and pitavastatin. At baseline, 40.5% of patients used statins.
• The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality and liver-related events, including cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in liver stiffness assessed over a median follow-up duration of 4.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Statin usage was associated with a 76.7% lower risk for all-cause mortality and a 62% lower risk of liver-related events than non-use (both P < .001).
• Statin use also was associated with a 46% and 55% lower risk for liver stiffness progression in the cACLD and non-cACLD groups, respectively, than non-use (both P < .001).
• No significant association was found between statin use and liver stiffness regression.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this cohort study suggest that statin usage may help reduce CVD [cardiovascular disease] morbidity and mortality rates and slow down liver stiffness progression in both cACLD and non-cALCD patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Xiao-Dong Zhou, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

The assessment of patients at different intervals may have affected the interpretation of the data. The median follow-up period may be considered short for assessing the progression of CLD. Additionally, residual confounding in statin users could have led to an overestimation of the benefits of statins.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and National Key R&D Program of China. Some authors reported receiving personal fees, consulting fees, speaker bureau fees, grants, nonfinancial support, and honoraria for lectures and travel expenses and owning stock options with pharmaceutical and medical device companies outside of the submitted work. Two researchers were employed by Echosens during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Statin usage in patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is associated with a lower long-term risk for all-cause mortality, liver-related events, and progression of liver stiffness.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although many patients with MASLD have indications for statins, including cardiovascular disease, they are not widely used owing to concerns about possible liver damage and muscle weakness.
• Researchers conducted an observational cohort study to evaluate the long-term effects of statin use in 7988 patients (mean age, 53 years; 58.2% women) with MASLD who underwent at least two vibration-controlled transient elastography exams. The study involved 16 centers in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
• Patients were classified into those with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD; liver stiffness measurement ≥ 10 kPa) and those without cACLD (liver stiffness measurement < 10 kPa). At baseline, 17% of patients had cACLD.
• Statin prescriptions included simvastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, and pitavastatin. At baseline, 40.5% of patients used statins.
• The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality and liver-related events, including cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or liver-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in liver stiffness assessed over a median follow-up duration of 4.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Statin usage was associated with a 76.7% lower risk for all-cause mortality and a 62% lower risk of liver-related events than non-use (both P < .001).
• Statin use also was associated with a 46% and 55% lower risk for liver stiffness progression in the cACLD and non-cACLD groups, respectively, than non-use (both P < .001).
• No significant association was found between statin use and liver stiffness regression.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of this cohort study suggest that statin usage may help reduce CVD [cardiovascular disease] morbidity and mortality rates and slow down liver stiffness progression in both cACLD and non-cALCD patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Xiao-Dong Zhou, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China, was published online in Gut.

LIMITATIONS:

The assessment of patients at different intervals may have affected the interpretation of the data. The median follow-up period may be considered short for assessing the progression of CLD. Additionally, residual confounding in statin users could have led to an overestimation of the benefits of statins.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and National Key R&D Program of China. Some authors reported receiving personal fees, consulting fees, speaker bureau fees, grants, nonfinancial support, and honoraria for lectures and travel expenses and owning stock options with pharmaceutical and medical device companies outside of the submitted work. Two researchers were employed by Echosens during the conduct of the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The global dietary supplement industry generates more than $400 billion a year. Supplements are alleged to treat many health concerns, from immune conditions and cognition to sexual dysfunction and premature wrinkles. Although some supplements have been proven to be helpful, others have no scientific basis.

I can preach all day that a healthy diet rarely needs supplementation. But even as a dietitian, I find it difficult to consistently eat a diet that is both sufficiently varied and adequate to provide for all my nutrition needs. Our patients with kidney disease, surely, are not immune to this plight. They may even be more inclined to nutrient deficiencies, as poor diet is linked to increased incidence and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

I find that patients with kidney disease often have an interest in dietary supplementation, even those with a well-rounded diet. Though we can discourage the use of supplements, or at the very least encourage patient transparency regarding supplement use, many will continue dietary supplementation at the suggestion of their friends, family, or even their preferred daytime talk show host. 

What these patients truly require is education on using supplements that are most beneficial to them. By recommending supplements that address patients’ pain points like inflammation, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular health, and reduced progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), we can improve patient health and, hopefully, decrease use of questionable supplements.
 

Probiotics

Although probiotics have been used in the treatment of digestive issues for many years, the gut-kidney axis is only recently being explored. Studies show that the microbiota of patients with CKD is altered, even in the early stages of disease, producing additional inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. This can be remedied, or at least alleviated, by introducing a probiotic supplement.

Some probiotics have been shown to decrease inflammation, decrease fasting blood glucose, decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), decrease blood urea nitrogen and urea, and decrease uric acid

Probiotic-rich foods like kimchi or fermented pickles may not be appropriate because of excessive sodium content or simply because of patient preference — kombucha isn’t for everyone. However, adding a probiotic supplement can improve gut microbiota without undermining dietary concerns. 

When recommending probiotics, patients should be educated to ensure that their probiotic has strains that have been proven to be beneficial for kidney health. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, ^{Bifidobacterium} species, and Streptococcus thermophilus have been shown to have a positive effect on kidney health and decreasing progression of CKD at a dosage of 109 colony-forming units per day.
 

Fish Oil

Though nephrology and cardiology are separate fields, it cannot be overstated that kidney patients are also heart patients. 

Patients with CKD and an eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²are most likely to die from cardiovascular causes, and this likelihood increases as eGFR decreases. CKD-associated dyslipidemia results in elevated triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol often accompanied by proteinuria, and has been linked to an increase in atherosclerosis.

A simple fish oil supplement can work to decrease oxidative stress, relieve inflammation, and improve serum lipids, leading to improved kidney and cardiovascular health. One meta-analysis found that high-dose fish oil supplementation, though it had no effect on serum creatinine or eGFR, was associated with a lower risk for proteinuria and progression to ESRD. 

Fish oil’s popularity in recent years bodes well for the kidney patient. It is now easily obtained over the counter in high doses to meet the recommended adequate intake of omega-3s, which is 1100 mg/d for women and 1600 mg/d for men. There are also more burpless varieties of these supplements to increase compliance. 
 

Vitamin D

Patients with renal disease are prone to vitamin D deficiency through inadequate intake and limited sunlight, which is exacerbated by the diseased kidney’s inability to effectively convert calcidiol to calcitriol. Vitamin D deficiency is linked to poor bone health, fatigue, muscle pain, impaired wound healing, and depression. Low vitamin D status has also been linked to poor outcomes in cancer, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.

A meta-analysis of over 6000 patients with CKD found that high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) are associated with significantly improved survival rates regardless of CKD or ESRD status. 

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to correct (OH)D deficiency. This ensures adequate supply for conversion to calcitriol, but it cannot affect bone and mineral metabolism without further intervention in the form of calcitriol supplementation. By supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to meet the recommended daily allowance of 15 µg (600 IU) for adults under 70 years and 20 µg (800 IU) for adults over 70 years, the primary care team can ensure that the body has all the building blocks required for the nephrology team to then address mineral and bone disorder in CKD without the fear of promoting hypercalcemia. 
 

Safe Purchasing Practices

Patients should be reminded to purchase dietary supplements from reputable dealers, especially when purchasing online. Retailers like Amazon are increasing the barriers required to sell supplements to improve the quality of products sold on the site. But other online retailers may sell products from outside of the United States that fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction. 

Patients should also be reminded that “more is not always better” and counseled on appropriate dosages for individual needs. 
 

In Summary

Patients will probably continue to lean on dietary supplements, regardless of our approval. Transparency and education are important when working with patients with CKD, especially in regard to dietary supplements. 

When recommended appropriately, however, the supplements discussed can lead to better outcomes with improvements in kidney health by addressing inflammation, serum lipids, glycemic control, and cardiovascular health.

Ms. Winfree Root is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The global dietary supplement industry generates more than $400 billion a year. Supplements are alleged to treat many health concerns, from immune conditions and cognition to sexual dysfunction and premature wrinkles. Although some supplements have been proven to be helpful, others have no scientific basis.

I can preach all day that a healthy diet rarely needs supplementation. But even as a dietitian, I find it difficult to consistently eat a diet that is both sufficiently varied and adequate to provide for all my nutrition needs. Our patients with kidney disease, surely, are not immune to this plight. They may even be more inclined to nutrient deficiencies, as poor diet is linked to increased incidence and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

I find that patients with kidney disease often have an interest in dietary supplementation, even those with a well-rounded diet. Though we can discourage the use of supplements, or at the very least encourage patient transparency regarding supplement use, many will continue dietary supplementation at the suggestion of their friends, family, or even their preferred daytime talk show host. 

What these patients truly require is education on using supplements that are most beneficial to them. By recommending supplements that address patients’ pain points like inflammation, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular health, and reduced progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), we can improve patient health and, hopefully, decrease use of questionable supplements.
 

Probiotics

Although probiotics have been used in the treatment of digestive issues for many years, the gut-kidney axis is only recently being explored. Studies show that the microbiota of patients with CKD is altered, even in the early stages of disease, producing additional inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. This can be remedied, or at least alleviated, by introducing a probiotic supplement.

Some probiotics have been shown to decrease inflammation, decrease fasting blood glucose, decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), decrease blood urea nitrogen and urea, and decrease uric acid

Probiotic-rich foods like kimchi or fermented pickles may not be appropriate because of excessive sodium content or simply because of patient preference — kombucha isn’t for everyone. However, adding a probiotic supplement can improve gut microbiota without undermining dietary concerns. 

When recommending probiotics, patients should be educated to ensure that their probiotic has strains that have been proven to be beneficial for kidney health. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, ^{Bifidobacterium} species, and Streptococcus thermophilus have been shown to have a positive effect on kidney health and decreasing progression of CKD at a dosage of 109 colony-forming units per day.
 

Fish Oil

Though nephrology and cardiology are separate fields, it cannot be overstated that kidney patients are also heart patients. 

Patients with CKD and an eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²are most likely to die from cardiovascular causes, and this likelihood increases as eGFR decreases. CKD-associated dyslipidemia results in elevated triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol often accompanied by proteinuria, and has been linked to an increase in atherosclerosis.

A simple fish oil supplement can work to decrease oxidative stress, relieve inflammation, and improve serum lipids, leading to improved kidney and cardiovascular health. One meta-analysis found that high-dose fish oil supplementation, though it had no effect on serum creatinine or eGFR, was associated with a lower risk for proteinuria and progression to ESRD. 

Fish oil’s popularity in recent years bodes well for the kidney patient. It is now easily obtained over the counter in high doses to meet the recommended adequate intake of omega-3s, which is 1100 mg/d for women and 1600 mg/d for men. There are also more burpless varieties of these supplements to increase compliance. 
 

Vitamin D

Patients with renal disease are prone to vitamin D deficiency through inadequate intake and limited sunlight, which is exacerbated by the diseased kidney’s inability to effectively convert calcidiol to calcitriol. Vitamin D deficiency is linked to poor bone health, fatigue, muscle pain, impaired wound healing, and depression. Low vitamin D status has also been linked to poor outcomes in cancer, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.

A meta-analysis of over 6000 patients with CKD found that high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) are associated with significantly improved survival rates regardless of CKD or ESRD status. 

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to correct (OH)D deficiency. This ensures adequate supply for conversion to calcitriol, but it cannot affect bone and mineral metabolism without further intervention in the form of calcitriol supplementation. By supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to meet the recommended daily allowance of 15 µg (600 IU) for adults under 70 years and 20 µg (800 IU) for adults over 70 years, the primary care team can ensure that the body has all the building blocks required for the nephrology team to then address mineral and bone disorder in CKD without the fear of promoting hypercalcemia. 
 

Safe Purchasing Practices

Patients should be reminded to purchase dietary supplements from reputable dealers, especially when purchasing online. Retailers like Amazon are increasing the barriers required to sell supplements to improve the quality of products sold on the site. But other online retailers may sell products from outside of the United States that fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction. 

Patients should also be reminded that “more is not always better” and counseled on appropriate dosages for individual needs. 
 

In Summary

Patients will probably continue to lean on dietary supplements, regardless of our approval. Transparency and education are important when working with patients with CKD, especially in regard to dietary supplements. 

When recommended appropriately, however, the supplements discussed can lead to better outcomes with improvements in kidney health by addressing inflammation, serum lipids, glycemic control, and cardiovascular health.

Ms. Winfree Root is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The global dietary supplement industry generates more than $400 billion a year. Supplements are alleged to treat many health concerns, from immune conditions and cognition to sexual dysfunction and premature wrinkles. Although some supplements have been proven to be helpful, others have no scientific basis.

I can preach all day that a healthy diet rarely needs supplementation. But even as a dietitian, I find it difficult to consistently eat a diet that is both sufficiently varied and adequate to provide for all my nutrition needs. Our patients with kidney disease, surely, are not immune to this plight. They may even be more inclined to nutrient deficiencies, as poor diet is linked to increased incidence and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

I find that patients with kidney disease often have an interest in dietary supplementation, even those with a well-rounded diet. Though we can discourage the use of supplements, or at the very least encourage patient transparency regarding supplement use, many will continue dietary supplementation at the suggestion of their friends, family, or even their preferred daytime talk show host. 

What these patients truly require is education on using supplements that are most beneficial to them. By recommending supplements that address patients’ pain points like inflammation, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular health, and reduced progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), we can improve patient health and, hopefully, decrease use of questionable supplements.
 

Probiotics

Although probiotics have been used in the treatment of digestive issues for many years, the gut-kidney axis is only recently being explored. Studies show that the microbiota of patients with CKD is altered, even in the early stages of disease, producing additional inflammation and metabolic dysfunction. This can be remedied, or at least alleviated, by introducing a probiotic supplement.

Some probiotics have been shown to decrease inflammation, decrease fasting blood glucose, decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol, increase estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), decrease blood urea nitrogen and urea, and decrease uric acid

Probiotic-rich foods like kimchi or fermented pickles may not be appropriate because of excessive sodium content or simply because of patient preference — kombucha isn’t for everyone. However, adding a probiotic supplement can improve gut microbiota without undermining dietary concerns. 

When recommending probiotics, patients should be educated to ensure that their probiotic has strains that have been proven to be beneficial for kidney health. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, ^{Bifidobacterium} species, and Streptococcus thermophilus have been shown to have a positive effect on kidney health and decreasing progression of CKD at a dosage of 109 colony-forming units per day.
 

Fish Oil

Though nephrology and cardiology are separate fields, it cannot be overstated that kidney patients are also heart patients. 

Patients with CKD and an eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²are most likely to die from cardiovascular causes, and this likelihood increases as eGFR decreases. CKD-associated dyslipidemia results in elevated triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol often accompanied by proteinuria, and has been linked to an increase in atherosclerosis.

A simple fish oil supplement can work to decrease oxidative stress, relieve inflammation, and improve serum lipids, leading to improved kidney and cardiovascular health. One meta-analysis found that high-dose fish oil supplementation, though it had no effect on serum creatinine or eGFR, was associated with a lower risk for proteinuria and progression to ESRD. 

Fish oil’s popularity in recent years bodes well for the kidney patient. It is now easily obtained over the counter in high doses to meet the recommended adequate intake of omega-3s, which is 1100 mg/d for women and 1600 mg/d for men. There are also more burpless varieties of these supplements to increase compliance. 
 

Vitamin D

Patients with renal disease are prone to vitamin D deficiency through inadequate intake and limited sunlight, which is exacerbated by the diseased kidney’s inability to effectively convert calcidiol to calcitriol. Vitamin D deficiency is linked to poor bone health, fatigue, muscle pain, impaired wound healing, and depression. Low vitamin D status has also been linked to poor outcomes in cancer, multiple sclerosis, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.

A meta-analysis of over 6000 patients with CKD found that high levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25[OH]D) are associated with significantly improved survival rates regardless of CKD or ESRD status. 

Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines recommend supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to correct (OH)D deficiency. This ensures adequate supply for conversion to calcitriol, but it cannot affect bone and mineral metabolism without further intervention in the form of calcitriol supplementation. By supplementing with ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol to meet the recommended daily allowance of 15 µg (600 IU) for adults under 70 years and 20 µg (800 IU) for adults over 70 years, the primary care team can ensure that the body has all the building blocks required for the nephrology team to then address mineral and bone disorder in CKD without the fear of promoting hypercalcemia. 
 

Safe Purchasing Practices

Patients should be reminded to purchase dietary supplements from reputable dealers, especially when purchasing online. Retailers like Amazon are increasing the barriers required to sell supplements to improve the quality of products sold on the site. But other online retailers may sell products from outside of the United States that fall outside of the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction. 

Patients should also be reminded that “more is not always better” and counseled on appropriate dosages for individual needs. 
 

In Summary

Patients will probably continue to lean on dietary supplements, regardless of our approval. Transparency and education are important when working with patients with CKD, especially in regard to dietary supplements. 

When recommended appropriately, however, the supplements discussed can lead to better outcomes with improvements in kidney health by addressing inflammation, serum lipids, glycemic control, and cardiovascular health.

Ms. Winfree Root is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

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

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster was linked to shorter menstrual cycles in adolescent girls in the 4 months following administration, particularly when teens were in their follicular phase. The vaccine did not appear to be associated with shifts in menstrual flow, pain, or other symptoms.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Reports of menstrual cycle changes following the COVID-19 vaccination began to emerge in early 2021, raising concerns about the impact of the vaccine on menstrual health.
• Researchers conducted a prospective study including 65 adolescent girls (mean age, 17.3 years), of whom 47 had received an initial series of COVID-19 vaccination at least 6 months prior to receiving a booster dose (booster group), and 18 had not received the booster vaccine (control group), two of whom had never received any COVID-19 vaccine, four who had received an initial vaccine but not a booster, and 12 who had received an initial vaccine and booster but more than 6 months prior to the study.
• Menstrual cycle length was measured for three cycles prior to and four cycles after vaccination in the booster group and for seven cycles in the control group.
• Menstrual flow, pain, and stress were measured at baseline and monthly for 3 months post vaccination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the booster group experienced shorter cycles by an average of 5.35 days after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine (P = .03), particularly during the second cycle. In contrast, those in the control group did not experience any changes in the menstrual cycle length.
• Receiving the booster dose in the follicular phase was associated with significantly shorter menstrual cycles, compared with pre-booster cycles (P = .0157).
• Menstrual flow, pain, and other symptoms remained unaffected after the COVID-19 booster vaccination.
• Higher stress levels at baseline were also associated with a shorter length of the menstrual cycle (P = .03) in both groups, regardless of the booster vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data are potentially important for counseling parents regarding potential vaccine refusal in the future for their teen daughters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura A. Payne, PhD, from McLean Hospital in Boston, and was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size for the booster and control groups was relatively small and homogeneous. The study did not include the height, weight, birth control use, or other chronic conditions of the participants, which may have influenced the functioning of the menstrual cycle. The control group included a majority of teens who had previously received a vaccine and even a booster, which could have affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Some authors received consulting fees, travel reimbursements, honoraria, research funding, and royalties from Bayer Healthcare, Mahana Therapeutics, Gates, and Merck, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster was linked to shorter menstrual cycles in adolescent girls in the 4 months following administration, particularly when teens were in their follicular phase. The vaccine did not appear to be associated with shifts in menstrual flow, pain, or other symptoms.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Reports of menstrual cycle changes following the COVID-19 vaccination began to emerge in early 2021, raising concerns about the impact of the vaccine on menstrual health.
• Researchers conducted a prospective study including 65 adolescent girls (mean age, 17.3 years), of whom 47 had received an initial series of COVID-19 vaccination at least 6 months prior to receiving a booster dose (booster group), and 18 had not received the booster vaccine (control group), two of whom had never received any COVID-19 vaccine, four who had received an initial vaccine but not a booster, and 12 who had received an initial vaccine and booster but more than 6 months prior to the study.
• Menstrual cycle length was measured for three cycles prior to and four cycles after vaccination in the booster group and for seven cycles in the control group.
• Menstrual flow, pain, and stress were measured at baseline and monthly for 3 months post vaccination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the booster group experienced shorter cycles by an average of 5.35 days after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine (P = .03), particularly during the second cycle. In contrast, those in the control group did not experience any changes in the menstrual cycle length.
• Receiving the booster dose in the follicular phase was associated with significantly shorter menstrual cycles, compared with pre-booster cycles (P = .0157).
• Menstrual flow, pain, and other symptoms remained unaffected after the COVID-19 booster vaccination.
• Higher stress levels at baseline were also associated with a shorter length of the menstrual cycle (P = .03) in both groups, regardless of the booster vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data are potentially important for counseling parents regarding potential vaccine refusal in the future for their teen daughters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura A. Payne, PhD, from McLean Hospital in Boston, and was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size for the booster and control groups was relatively small and homogeneous. The study did not include the height, weight, birth control use, or other chronic conditions of the participants, which may have influenced the functioning of the menstrual cycle. The control group included a majority of teens who had previously received a vaccine and even a booster, which could have affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Some authors received consulting fees, travel reimbursements, honoraria, research funding, and royalties from Bayer Healthcare, Mahana Therapeutics, Gates, and Merck, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The COVID-19 booster was linked to shorter menstrual cycles in adolescent girls in the 4 months following administration, particularly when teens were in their follicular phase. The vaccine did not appear to be associated with shifts in menstrual flow, pain, or other symptoms.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Reports of menstrual cycle changes following the COVID-19 vaccination began to emerge in early 2021, raising concerns about the impact of the vaccine on menstrual health.
• Researchers conducted a prospective study including 65 adolescent girls (mean age, 17.3 years), of whom 47 had received an initial series of COVID-19 vaccination at least 6 months prior to receiving a booster dose (booster group), and 18 had not received the booster vaccine (control group), two of whom had never received any COVID-19 vaccine, four who had received an initial vaccine but not a booster, and 12 who had received an initial vaccine and booster but more than 6 months prior to the study.
• Menstrual cycle length was measured for three cycles prior to and four cycles after vaccination in the booster group and for seven cycles in the control group.
• Menstrual flow, pain, and stress were measured at baseline and monthly for 3 months post vaccination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants in the booster group experienced shorter cycles by an average of 5.35 days after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine (P = .03), particularly during the second cycle. In contrast, those in the control group did not experience any changes in the menstrual cycle length.
• Receiving the booster dose in the follicular phase was associated with significantly shorter menstrual cycles, compared with pre-booster cycles (P = .0157).
• Menstrual flow, pain, and other symptoms remained unaffected after the COVID-19 booster vaccination.
• Higher stress levels at baseline were also associated with a shorter length of the menstrual cycle (P = .03) in both groups, regardless of the booster vaccination status.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data are potentially important for counseling parents regarding potential vaccine refusal in the future for their teen daughters,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Laura A. Payne, PhD, from McLean Hospital in Boston, and was published online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The sample size for the booster and control groups was relatively small and homogeneous. The study did not include the height, weight, birth control use, or other chronic conditions of the participants, which may have influenced the functioning of the menstrual cycle. The control group included a majority of teens who had previously received a vaccine and even a booster, which could have affected results.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Some authors received consulting fees, travel reimbursements, honoraria, research funding, and royalties from Bayer Healthcare, Mahana Therapeutics, Gates, and Merck, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs) and the use of antibiotics for prevention are substantial among women in Wales, particularly among those over the age of 57 years. A high level of resistance to two recommended antibiotics was observed, suggesting that more frequent urine cultures could better guide antibiotic selection for treatment and prophylaxis.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a large databank of patients in Wales to describe the characteristics and urine profiles of women with rUTIs between 2010 and 2022.
• They created two cohorts: One with 92,213 women (median age, 60 years) who experienced rUTIs, defined as two or more acute episodes within 6 months or three or more acute episodes within 12 months.
• Another cohort comprised of 26,862 women (median age, 71 years) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics, which was defined as receiving three or more consecutive prescriptions of the same UTI-specific antibiotic (trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, or cefalexin), with intervals of 21-56 days between prescriptions.
• Urine culture results in the 12 months before a rUTI diagnosis and 18 months before prophylactic antibiotic initiation and all urine culture results within 7 days of an acute UTI were analyzed to assess antibiotic resistance patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 6% of women had rUTIs, 1.7% of which were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics with proportions increasing sharply after age 57.
• Nearly half of the women (49%) who were prescribed a prophylactic antibiotic qualified as having rUTIs in the 18 months before initiation.
• This study showed that 80.8% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result documented in the 12 months preceding the diagnosis.
• More than half (64%) of the women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result documented before starting treatment, and 18% of those prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to the antibiotic.

IN PRACTICE:

“More frequent urine cultures in the workup of rUTI diagnosis and prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choice,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Leigh Sanyaolu, BSc (Hons), MRCS, MRCGP, PGDip, a general practitioner from the Division of Population Medicine and PRIME Centre Wales at Cardiff University in Cardiff, and was published online in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on electronic health records may have led to coding errors and missing data. The diagnosis of UTIs may have been difficult in older women with increased frailty as they can have fewer specific symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria, which can be misdiagnosed as a UTI.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by Health and Care Research Wales. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.