Clinician Reviews

TOPLINE:

Mortality in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS), sometimes called broken heart syndrome or stress-induced cardiomyopathy is substantially higher than that in the general population and comparable with that in patients having myocardial infarction (MI), results of a new case-control study showed. The rates of medication use are similar for TTS and MI, despite no current clinical trials or recommendations to guide such therapies, the authors noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 620 Scottish patients (mean age, 66 years; 91% women) with TTS, a potentially fatal condition that mimics MI, predominantly affects middle-aged women, and is often triggered by stress.
• The analysis also included two age-, sex-, and geographically matched control groups: Representative participants from the general Scottish population (1:4) and patients with acute MI (1:1).
• Using comprehensive national data sets, researchers extracted information for all three cohorts on prescribing of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications, including the duration of dispensing and causes of death, and clustered the major causes of death into 17 major groups.
• At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 722 deaths (153 in patients with TTS, 195 in those with MI, and 374 in the general population cohort).

TAKEAWAY:

• and slightly lower than that in patients having MI (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .012), with cardiovascular causes, particularly heart failure, being the most strongly associated with TTS (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.81-3.39; P < .0001 vs general population), followed by pulmonary causes. Noncardiovascular mortality was similar in TTS and MI.
• Prescription rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications were similar between patients with TTS and MI.
• The only cardiovascular therapy associated with lower mortality in patients with TTS was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (P = .0056); in contrast, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and statins were all associated with improved survival in patients with MI.
• Diuretics were associated with worse outcomes in both patients with TTS and MI, as was psychotropic therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may help to lay the foundations for further exploration of potential mechanisms and treatments” for TTS, an “increasingly recognized and potentially fatal condition,” the authors concluded.

In an accompanying comment, Rodolfo Citro, MD, PHD, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’ Aragona University Hospital, Salerno, Italy, and colleagues said the authors should be commended for providing data on cardiovascular mortality “during one of the longest available follow-ups in TTS,” adding the study “suggests the importance of further research for more appropriate management of patients with acute and long-term TTS.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Amelia E. Rudd, MSC, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Complete alignment of all variables related to clinical characteristics of patients with TTS and MI wasn’t feasible. During the study, TTS was still relatively unfamiliar to clinicians and underdiagnosed. As the study used a national data set of routinely collected data, not all desirable information was available, including indications of why drugs were prescribed or discontinued, which could have led to imprecise results. As the study used nonrandomized data, causality can’t be assumed.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Rudd had no relevant conflicts of interest. Study author Dana K. Dawson, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, declared receiving the Chief Scientist Office Scotland award CGA-16-4 and the BHF Research Training Fellowship. Commentary authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mortality in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS), sometimes called broken heart syndrome or stress-induced cardiomyopathy is substantially higher than that in the general population and comparable with that in patients having myocardial infarction (MI), results of a new case-control study showed. The rates of medication use are similar for TTS and MI, despite no current clinical trials or recommendations to guide such therapies, the authors noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 620 Scottish patients (mean age, 66 years; 91% women) with TTS, a potentially fatal condition that mimics MI, predominantly affects middle-aged women, and is often triggered by stress.
• The analysis also included two age-, sex-, and geographically matched control groups: Representative participants from the general Scottish population (1:4) and patients with acute MI (1:1).
• Using comprehensive national data sets, researchers extracted information for all three cohorts on prescribing of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications, including the duration of dispensing and causes of death, and clustered the major causes of death into 17 major groups.
• At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 722 deaths (153 in patients with TTS, 195 in those with MI, and 374 in the general population cohort).

TAKEAWAY:

• and slightly lower than that in patients having MI (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .012), with cardiovascular causes, particularly heart failure, being the most strongly associated with TTS (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.81-3.39; P < .0001 vs general population), followed by pulmonary causes. Noncardiovascular mortality was similar in TTS and MI.
• Prescription rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications were similar between patients with TTS and MI.
• The only cardiovascular therapy associated with lower mortality in patients with TTS was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (P = .0056); in contrast, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and statins were all associated with improved survival in patients with MI.
• Diuretics were associated with worse outcomes in both patients with TTS and MI, as was psychotropic therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may help to lay the foundations for further exploration of potential mechanisms and treatments” for TTS, an “increasingly recognized and potentially fatal condition,” the authors concluded.

In an accompanying comment, Rodolfo Citro, MD, PHD, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’ Aragona University Hospital, Salerno, Italy, and colleagues said the authors should be commended for providing data on cardiovascular mortality “during one of the longest available follow-ups in TTS,” adding the study “suggests the importance of further research for more appropriate management of patients with acute and long-term TTS.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Amelia E. Rudd, MSC, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Complete alignment of all variables related to clinical characteristics of patients with TTS and MI wasn’t feasible. During the study, TTS was still relatively unfamiliar to clinicians and underdiagnosed. As the study used a national data set of routinely collected data, not all desirable information was available, including indications of why drugs were prescribed or discontinued, which could have led to imprecise results. As the study used nonrandomized data, causality can’t be assumed.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Rudd had no relevant conflicts of interest. Study author Dana K. Dawson, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, declared receiving the Chief Scientist Office Scotland award CGA-16-4 and the BHF Research Training Fellowship. Commentary authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mortality in patients with takotsubo syndrome (TTS), sometimes called broken heart syndrome or stress-induced cardiomyopathy is substantially higher than that in the general population and comparable with that in patients having myocardial infarction (MI), results of a new case-control study showed. The rates of medication use are similar for TTS and MI, despite no current clinical trials or recommendations to guide such therapies, the authors noted.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 620 Scottish patients (mean age, 66 years; 91% women) with TTS, a potentially fatal condition that mimics MI, predominantly affects middle-aged women, and is often triggered by stress.
• The analysis also included two age-, sex-, and geographically matched control groups: Representative participants from the general Scottish population (1:4) and patients with acute MI (1:1).
• Using comprehensive national data sets, researchers extracted information for all three cohorts on prescribing of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications, including the duration of dispensing and causes of death, and clustered the major causes of death into 17 major groups.
• At a median follow-up of 5.5 years, there were 722 deaths (153 in patients with TTS, 195 in those with MI, and 374 in the general population cohort).

TAKEAWAY:

• and slightly lower than that in patients having MI (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .012), with cardiovascular causes, particularly heart failure, being the most strongly associated with TTS (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.81-3.39; P < .0001 vs general population), followed by pulmonary causes. Noncardiovascular mortality was similar in TTS and MI.
• Prescription rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular medications were similar between patients with TTS and MI.
• The only cardiovascular therapy associated with lower mortality in patients with TTS was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (P = .0056); in contrast, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents, and statins were all associated with improved survival in patients with MI.
• Diuretics were associated with worse outcomes in both patients with TTS and MI, as was psychotropic therapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may help to lay the foundations for further exploration of potential mechanisms and treatments” for TTS, an “increasingly recognized and potentially fatal condition,” the authors concluded.

In an accompanying comment, Rodolfo Citro, MD, PHD, Cardiovascular and Thoracic Department, San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’ Aragona University Hospital, Salerno, Italy, and colleagues said the authors should be commended for providing data on cardiovascular mortality “during one of the longest available follow-ups in TTS,” adding the study “suggests the importance of further research for more appropriate management of patients with acute and long-term TTS.”

SOURCE:

The research was led by Amelia E. Rudd, MSC, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Complete alignment of all variables related to clinical characteristics of patients with TTS and MI wasn’t feasible. During the study, TTS was still relatively unfamiliar to clinicians and underdiagnosed. As the study used a national data set of routinely collected data, not all desirable information was available, including indications of why drugs were prescribed or discontinued, which could have led to imprecise results. As the study used nonrandomized data, causality can’t be assumed.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Rudd had no relevant conflicts of interest. Study author Dana K. Dawson, Aberdeen Cardiovascular and Diabetes Centre, University of Aberdeen, Scotland, declared receiving the Chief Scientist Office Scotland award CGA-16-4 and the BHF Research Training Fellowship. Commentary authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s no question that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists represent a major advance in the treatment of obesity for patients with or without diabetes. In clinical trials, participants lost 15%-20% of their body weight, depending on the drug.

But studies also have shown that once people stop taking these drugs — either by choice, because of shortage, or lack of access — they regain most, if not all, the weight they lost.

Arguably more frustrating is the fact that those who continue on the drug eventually reach a plateau, at which point, the body seemingly stubbornly refuses to lose more weight. Essentially, it stabilizes at its set point, said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, MBA, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

‘Tug of War’

Every study of weight loss drugs done over the past 40 years or so shows a plateau, Dr. Stanford told this news organization. “If you look at the phentermine/topiramate studies, there’s a plateau. If you look at the bupropion/naltrexone studies, there’s a plateau. Or if we look at bariatric surgery, there’s a plateau. And it’s the same for the newer GLP-1 drugs.”

The reason? “It really depends on where the body gets to,” Dr. Stanford said. “The body knows what it needs to do to maintain itself, and the brain knows where it’s supposed to be. And when you lose weight and reach what you feel is a lower set point, the body resists.”

When the body goes below its set point, the hunger hormone ghrelin, which is housed in the brain, gets reactivated and gradually starts to reemerge, she explained. GLP-1, which is housed in the distal portion of the small intestine and in the colon, also starts to reemerge over time.

“It becomes kind of a tug of war” between the body and whatever weight loss strategy is being implemented, from drugs to surgery to lifestyle changes, Dr. Stanford said. “The patient will start to notice changes in how their body is responding. Usually, they’ll say they don’t feel like the treatment is working the same. But the treatment is working the same as it’s always been working — except their body is now acclimated to it.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, professor and clinical scholar, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and director, agreed that in the simplest terms, a plateau occurs because “the body becomes more and more used to” the weight loss intervention.

However, when you lose weight, you lose both fat mass and lean body mass, and lean body mass is the metabolically active part of your body, explained Dr. Peters. “That’s what burns and basically makes up your basal metabolic rate.”

With weight loss, the metabolism slows down, she said. If patients need 2000 calories a day to survive at a certain weight and then lose 50 pounds, they may then need only a 1000 calories a day. “With any obesity treatment, you reach a point at which your metabolic rate and your daily caloric requirements become equal, and you stop losing weight, even though your daily caloric requirement is less than it was when your weight was higher.”
 

Managing the Plateau

Several strategies can be used to help patients break through a plateau. One is to try multiple weight loss agents with different targets — something often done in the real world, Dr. Stanford said. “You don’t see this in the studies, which are focused on just one drug, but many of our patients are on combination therapy. They’re on a GLP-1 drug plus phentermine/topiramate plus metformin, and more. They’re usually on three, four, five drugs, similar to what we would see with resistant hypertension.”

If a patient plateaus on a GLP-1 drug, Dr. Stanford might add phentermine. When the patient reaches a plateau on phentermine, she would switch again to another agent. “The goal is to use agents that treat different receptors in the brain,” she said. “You would never use two GLP-1 agonists; you would use the GLP-1, and then something that treats norepinephrine, for example.”

At the same time, Dr. Peters noted, “try to get them off the drugs that cause weight gain, like insulin and sulfonylurea agents.”

Tapering the GLP-1 dose can also help, Dr. Peters said. However, she added, “If I’m using a GLP-1 drug for type 2 diabetes, it’s different than if I’m using it just for weight loss. With type 2 diabetes, if you taper too much, the blood sugar and weight will go back up, so you need to reach a balance.”

Dr. Peters has successfully tapered patients from a 2-mg dose down to 1 mg. She has also changed the strategy for some — ie, the patient takes the drug every other week instead of every week. “I even have a patient or two who just take it once a month and that seems to be enough,” she said. “You want to help them be at the dose that maintains their weight and keeps them healthy with the least possible medication.”

Emphasizing lifestyle changes is also important, she said. Although resistance training won’t necessarily help with weight loss, “it’s critical to maintaining lean body mass. If people keep losing and regaining weight, they’re going to lose more and more lean body mass and gain the weight back primarily as fat mass. So, their exercise should include about half aerobic activity and half resistance training.”
 

Long-term Journey

Setting appropriate expectations is a key part of helping patients accept and deal with a plateau. “This is long-term, lifelong journey,” Dr. Stanford said. “We need to think about obesity as a complex, multifactorial chronic disease, like we think about hypertension or type 2 diabetes or hyperlipidemia.”

Furthermore, and in keeping with that perspective, emerging evidence is demonstrating that GLP-1 drugs also have important nonglycemic benefits that can be achieved and maintained, Dr. Peters said. “Obviously weight loss matters, and weight loss is good for you if you’re overweight or obese. But now we know that GLP-1 drugs have wonderful benefits for the heart as well as renal function.” These are reasons to continue the drugs even in the face of a plateau.

One of Dr. Peters’ patients, a physician with type 2 diabetes, had “fought with her weight her whole life. She’s been on one or another GLP-1 drug for more than 15 years, and while none seem to impact her weight, she’s gone from having relatively poorly controlled to now beautifully controlled diabetes,” Dr. Peters said. “Even if she hasn’t lost, she’s maintained her weight, a benefit since people tend to gain weight as they get older, and she hasn’t gained.”

Another patient was disabled, on oxygen, and had recurrent pulmonary embolisms. “She weighed 420 pounds, and I put her on semaglutide because she was too sick to be considered for bariatric surgery.” When that didn’t work, Dr. Peters switched her to tirzepatide, gradually increasing the dose; the patient lost 80 pounds, her emboli are gone, she can walk down the street, and went back to work.

“Part of why she could do that is that she started exercising,” Dr. Peters noted. “She felt so much better from the drug-related weight loss that she began to do things that help enhance weight loss. She became happier because she was no longer homebound.”

This points to another element that can help patients break through a plateau over time, Dr. Peters said — namely, behavioral health. “The more people lose weight, the more they feel better about themselves, and that may mean that they take better care of themselves. The psychological part of this journey is as important as anything else. Not everyone has the same response to these agents, and there are all sorts of issues behind why people are overweight that physicians can’t ignore.

“So, in addition to managing the drugs and lifestyle, it’s important to make sure that people access the behavioral health help they need, and that once they break through a plateau, they don’t develop an eating disorder or go to the opposite extreme and become too thin, which has happened with some of my patients,” she said. “We need to remember that we’re not just giving patients a miraculous weight loss. We’re helping them to be healthier, mentally as well as physically.”

Dr. Stanford disclosed that she had been a consultant for Calibrate, GoodRx, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Vida Health, Life Force, Ilant Health, Melli Cell, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters disclosed that she had been a consultant for Vertex, Medscape Medical News, and Lilly; received funding from Abbott and Insulet; and had stock options in Omada Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s no question that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists represent a major advance in the treatment of obesity for patients with or without diabetes. In clinical trials, participants lost 15%-20% of their body weight, depending on the drug.

But studies also have shown that once people stop taking these drugs — either by choice, because of shortage, or lack of access — they regain most, if not all, the weight they lost.

Arguably more frustrating is the fact that those who continue on the drug eventually reach a plateau, at which point, the body seemingly stubbornly refuses to lose more weight. Essentially, it stabilizes at its set point, said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, MBA, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

‘Tug of War’

Every study of weight loss drugs done over the past 40 years or so shows a plateau, Dr. Stanford told this news organization. “If you look at the phentermine/topiramate studies, there’s a plateau. If you look at the bupropion/naltrexone studies, there’s a plateau. Or if we look at bariatric surgery, there’s a plateau. And it’s the same for the newer GLP-1 drugs.”

The reason? “It really depends on where the body gets to,” Dr. Stanford said. “The body knows what it needs to do to maintain itself, and the brain knows where it’s supposed to be. And when you lose weight and reach what you feel is a lower set point, the body resists.”

When the body goes below its set point, the hunger hormone ghrelin, which is housed in the brain, gets reactivated and gradually starts to reemerge, she explained. GLP-1, which is housed in the distal portion of the small intestine and in the colon, also starts to reemerge over time.

“It becomes kind of a tug of war” between the body and whatever weight loss strategy is being implemented, from drugs to surgery to lifestyle changes, Dr. Stanford said. “The patient will start to notice changes in how their body is responding. Usually, they’ll say they don’t feel like the treatment is working the same. But the treatment is working the same as it’s always been working — except their body is now acclimated to it.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, professor and clinical scholar, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and director, agreed that in the simplest terms, a plateau occurs because “the body becomes more and more used to” the weight loss intervention.

However, when you lose weight, you lose both fat mass and lean body mass, and lean body mass is the metabolically active part of your body, explained Dr. Peters. “That’s what burns and basically makes up your basal metabolic rate.”

With weight loss, the metabolism slows down, she said. If patients need 2000 calories a day to survive at a certain weight and then lose 50 pounds, they may then need only a 1000 calories a day. “With any obesity treatment, you reach a point at which your metabolic rate and your daily caloric requirements become equal, and you stop losing weight, even though your daily caloric requirement is less than it was when your weight was higher.”
 

Managing the Plateau

Several strategies can be used to help patients break through a plateau. One is to try multiple weight loss agents with different targets — something often done in the real world, Dr. Stanford said. “You don’t see this in the studies, which are focused on just one drug, but many of our patients are on combination therapy. They’re on a GLP-1 drug plus phentermine/topiramate plus metformin, and more. They’re usually on three, four, five drugs, similar to what we would see with resistant hypertension.”

If a patient plateaus on a GLP-1 drug, Dr. Stanford might add phentermine. When the patient reaches a plateau on phentermine, she would switch again to another agent. “The goal is to use agents that treat different receptors in the brain,” she said. “You would never use two GLP-1 agonists; you would use the GLP-1, and then something that treats norepinephrine, for example.”

At the same time, Dr. Peters noted, “try to get them off the drugs that cause weight gain, like insulin and sulfonylurea agents.”

Tapering the GLP-1 dose can also help, Dr. Peters said. However, she added, “If I’m using a GLP-1 drug for type 2 diabetes, it’s different than if I’m using it just for weight loss. With type 2 diabetes, if you taper too much, the blood sugar and weight will go back up, so you need to reach a balance.”

Dr. Peters has successfully tapered patients from a 2-mg dose down to 1 mg. She has also changed the strategy for some — ie, the patient takes the drug every other week instead of every week. “I even have a patient or two who just take it once a month and that seems to be enough,” she said. “You want to help them be at the dose that maintains their weight and keeps them healthy with the least possible medication.”

Emphasizing lifestyle changes is also important, she said. Although resistance training won’t necessarily help with weight loss, “it’s critical to maintaining lean body mass. If people keep losing and regaining weight, they’re going to lose more and more lean body mass and gain the weight back primarily as fat mass. So, their exercise should include about half aerobic activity and half resistance training.”
 

Long-term Journey

Setting appropriate expectations is a key part of helping patients accept and deal with a plateau. “This is long-term, lifelong journey,” Dr. Stanford said. “We need to think about obesity as a complex, multifactorial chronic disease, like we think about hypertension or type 2 diabetes or hyperlipidemia.”

Furthermore, and in keeping with that perspective, emerging evidence is demonstrating that GLP-1 drugs also have important nonglycemic benefits that can be achieved and maintained, Dr. Peters said. “Obviously weight loss matters, and weight loss is good for you if you’re overweight or obese. But now we know that GLP-1 drugs have wonderful benefits for the heart as well as renal function.” These are reasons to continue the drugs even in the face of a plateau.

One of Dr. Peters’ patients, a physician with type 2 diabetes, had “fought with her weight her whole life. She’s been on one or another GLP-1 drug for more than 15 years, and while none seem to impact her weight, she’s gone from having relatively poorly controlled to now beautifully controlled diabetes,” Dr. Peters said. “Even if she hasn’t lost, she’s maintained her weight, a benefit since people tend to gain weight as they get older, and she hasn’t gained.”

Another patient was disabled, on oxygen, and had recurrent pulmonary embolisms. “She weighed 420 pounds, and I put her on semaglutide because she was too sick to be considered for bariatric surgery.” When that didn’t work, Dr. Peters switched her to tirzepatide, gradually increasing the dose; the patient lost 80 pounds, her emboli are gone, she can walk down the street, and went back to work.

“Part of why she could do that is that she started exercising,” Dr. Peters noted. “She felt so much better from the drug-related weight loss that she began to do things that help enhance weight loss. She became happier because she was no longer homebound.”

This points to another element that can help patients break through a plateau over time, Dr. Peters said — namely, behavioral health. “The more people lose weight, the more they feel better about themselves, and that may mean that they take better care of themselves. The psychological part of this journey is as important as anything else. Not everyone has the same response to these agents, and there are all sorts of issues behind why people are overweight that physicians can’t ignore.

“So, in addition to managing the drugs and lifestyle, it’s important to make sure that people access the behavioral health help they need, and that once they break through a plateau, they don’t develop an eating disorder or go to the opposite extreme and become too thin, which has happened with some of my patients,” she said. “We need to remember that we’re not just giving patients a miraculous weight loss. We’re helping them to be healthier, mentally as well as physically.”

Dr. Stanford disclosed that she had been a consultant for Calibrate, GoodRx, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Vida Health, Life Force, Ilant Health, Melli Cell, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters disclosed that she had been a consultant for Vertex, Medscape Medical News, and Lilly; received funding from Abbott and Insulet; and had stock options in Omada Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There’s no question that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists represent a major advance in the treatment of obesity for patients with or without diabetes. In clinical trials, participants lost 15%-20% of their body weight, depending on the drug.

But studies also have shown that once people stop taking these drugs — either by choice, because of shortage, or lack of access — they regain most, if not all, the weight they lost.

Arguably more frustrating is the fact that those who continue on the drug eventually reach a plateau, at which point, the body seemingly stubbornly refuses to lose more weight. Essentially, it stabilizes at its set point, said Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, MPH, MPA, MBA, an obesity medicine physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and associate professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
 

‘Tug of War’

Every study of weight loss drugs done over the past 40 years or so shows a plateau, Dr. Stanford told this news organization. “If you look at the phentermine/topiramate studies, there’s a plateau. If you look at the bupropion/naltrexone studies, there’s a plateau. Or if we look at bariatric surgery, there’s a plateau. And it’s the same for the newer GLP-1 drugs.”

The reason? “It really depends on where the body gets to,” Dr. Stanford said. “The body knows what it needs to do to maintain itself, and the brain knows where it’s supposed to be. And when you lose weight and reach what you feel is a lower set point, the body resists.”

When the body goes below its set point, the hunger hormone ghrelin, which is housed in the brain, gets reactivated and gradually starts to reemerge, she explained. GLP-1, which is housed in the distal portion of the small intestine and in the colon, also starts to reemerge over time.

“It becomes kind of a tug of war” between the body and whatever weight loss strategy is being implemented, from drugs to surgery to lifestyle changes, Dr. Stanford said. “The patient will start to notice changes in how their body is responding. Usually, they’ll say they don’t feel like the treatment is working the same. But the treatment is working the same as it’s always been working — except their body is now acclimated to it.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, CDE, professor and clinical scholar, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, and director, agreed that in the simplest terms, a plateau occurs because “the body becomes more and more used to” the weight loss intervention.

However, when you lose weight, you lose both fat mass and lean body mass, and lean body mass is the metabolically active part of your body, explained Dr. Peters. “That’s what burns and basically makes up your basal metabolic rate.”

With weight loss, the metabolism slows down, she said. If patients need 2000 calories a day to survive at a certain weight and then lose 50 pounds, they may then need only a 1000 calories a day. “With any obesity treatment, you reach a point at which your metabolic rate and your daily caloric requirements become equal, and you stop losing weight, even though your daily caloric requirement is less than it was when your weight was higher.”
 

Managing the Plateau

Several strategies can be used to help patients break through a plateau. One is to try multiple weight loss agents with different targets — something often done in the real world, Dr. Stanford said. “You don’t see this in the studies, which are focused on just one drug, but many of our patients are on combination therapy. They’re on a GLP-1 drug plus phentermine/topiramate plus metformin, and more. They’re usually on three, four, five drugs, similar to what we would see with resistant hypertension.”

If a patient plateaus on a GLP-1 drug, Dr. Stanford might add phentermine. When the patient reaches a plateau on phentermine, she would switch again to another agent. “The goal is to use agents that treat different receptors in the brain,” she said. “You would never use two GLP-1 agonists; you would use the GLP-1, and then something that treats norepinephrine, for example.”

At the same time, Dr. Peters noted, “try to get them off the drugs that cause weight gain, like insulin and sulfonylurea agents.”

Tapering the GLP-1 dose can also help, Dr. Peters said. However, she added, “If I’m using a GLP-1 drug for type 2 diabetes, it’s different than if I’m using it just for weight loss. With type 2 diabetes, if you taper too much, the blood sugar and weight will go back up, so you need to reach a balance.”

Dr. Peters has successfully tapered patients from a 2-mg dose down to 1 mg. She has also changed the strategy for some — ie, the patient takes the drug every other week instead of every week. “I even have a patient or two who just take it once a month and that seems to be enough,” she said. “You want to help them be at the dose that maintains their weight and keeps them healthy with the least possible medication.”

Emphasizing lifestyle changes is also important, she said. Although resistance training won’t necessarily help with weight loss, “it’s critical to maintaining lean body mass. If people keep losing and regaining weight, they’re going to lose more and more lean body mass and gain the weight back primarily as fat mass. So, their exercise should include about half aerobic activity and half resistance training.”
 

Long-term Journey

Setting appropriate expectations is a key part of helping patients accept and deal with a plateau. “This is long-term, lifelong journey,” Dr. Stanford said. “We need to think about obesity as a complex, multifactorial chronic disease, like we think about hypertension or type 2 diabetes or hyperlipidemia.”

Furthermore, and in keeping with that perspective, emerging evidence is demonstrating that GLP-1 drugs also have important nonglycemic benefits that can be achieved and maintained, Dr. Peters said. “Obviously weight loss matters, and weight loss is good for you if you’re overweight or obese. But now we know that GLP-1 drugs have wonderful benefits for the heart as well as renal function.” These are reasons to continue the drugs even in the face of a plateau.

One of Dr. Peters’ patients, a physician with type 2 diabetes, had “fought with her weight her whole life. She’s been on one or another GLP-1 drug for more than 15 years, and while none seem to impact her weight, she’s gone from having relatively poorly controlled to now beautifully controlled diabetes,” Dr. Peters said. “Even if she hasn’t lost, she’s maintained her weight, a benefit since people tend to gain weight as they get older, and she hasn’t gained.”

Another patient was disabled, on oxygen, and had recurrent pulmonary embolisms. “She weighed 420 pounds, and I put her on semaglutide because she was too sick to be considered for bariatric surgery.” When that didn’t work, Dr. Peters switched her to tirzepatide, gradually increasing the dose; the patient lost 80 pounds, her emboli are gone, she can walk down the street, and went back to work.

“Part of why she could do that is that she started exercising,” Dr. Peters noted. “She felt so much better from the drug-related weight loss that she began to do things that help enhance weight loss. She became happier because she was no longer homebound.”

This points to another element that can help patients break through a plateau over time, Dr. Peters said — namely, behavioral health. “The more people lose weight, the more they feel better about themselves, and that may mean that they take better care of themselves. The psychological part of this journey is as important as anything else. Not everyone has the same response to these agents, and there are all sorts of issues behind why people are overweight that physicians can’t ignore.

“So, in addition to managing the drugs and lifestyle, it’s important to make sure that people access the behavioral health help they need, and that once they break through a plateau, they don’t develop an eating disorder or go to the opposite extreme and become too thin, which has happened with some of my patients,” she said. “We need to remember that we’re not just giving patients a miraculous weight loss. We’re helping them to be healthier, mentally as well as physically.”

Dr. Stanford disclosed that she had been a consultant for Calibrate, GoodRx, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gelesis, Vida Health, Life Force, Ilant Health, Melli Cell, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Peters disclosed that she had been a consultant for Vertex, Medscape Medical News, and Lilly; received funding from Abbott and Insulet; and had stock options in Omada Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

To lose weight, patients with obesity may be more interested in semaglutide products, but the glucagon-like peptide I agonists, such as Ozempic injections and Rybelsus tablets, are not yet cost-effective, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.

“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.

Penn Medicine

“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”

The study was published in Gut.
 

Cost Concerns

One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.

Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.

Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.

On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.

“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.

The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), class II (35-29.9 kg/m²), and class III (>40kg/m²) obesity.

Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
 

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments

When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.

In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).

“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.

The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.

But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.

“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.

“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”

Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.

At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.

One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.

One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

To lose weight, patients with obesity may be more interested in semaglutide products, but the glucagon-like peptide I agonists, such as Ozempic injections and Rybelsus tablets, are not yet cost-effective, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.

“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.

Penn Medicine

“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”

The study was published in Gut.
 

Cost Concerns

One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.

Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.

Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.

On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.

“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.

The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), class II (35-29.9 kg/m²), and class III (>40kg/m²) obesity.

Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
 

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments

When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.

In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).

“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.

The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.

But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.

“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.

“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”

Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.

At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.

One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.

One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

To lose weight, patients with obesity may be more interested in semaglutide products, but the glucagon-like peptide I agonists, such as Ozempic injections and Rybelsus tablets, are not yet cost-effective, according to a modeling study that compared the drugs with surgery and endoscopy.

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for moderate to severe (class II/III) obesity and the less invasive endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) for mild (class I) obesity were both cost effective strategies to reduce obesity, the researchers report.

“SG should be offered as the first-line treatment for class II and class III obesity,” write Monica Saumoy, MD, of the Center for Digestive Health, Penn Medicine Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, N.J., and coauthors. “ESG is an effective and cost-effective nonsurgical treatment for class I, class II and class III obesity, and more efforts are needed to ensure that patients have access to this procedure.

Penn Medicine

“While semaglutide is highly effective for weight loss, and there is substantial patient interest, it is not currently cost-effective due to its high cost,” they add. “With methods to reduce semaglutide’s annual cost, it may provide an effective and cost-effective method to reduce the morbidity related to obesity.”

The study was published in Gut.
 

Cost Concerns

One in two Americans will likely be obese by 2030, according to current models, and nearly one in four adults will be severely obese.

Several weight-loss therapies exist to treat obesity. Evidence shows bariatric surgery is effective in reducing weight, metabolic comorbidities, and mortality in people with obesity compared with lifestyle intervention alone, but surgery has risks, adverse events, and poor national uptake. Patients are likely more interested in less invasive options, the authors write.

Recent trials have reported effective weight loss from less invasive options. A five-year follow-up of the randomized controlled MERIT trial found that ESG was associated with a 13.6% total body weight loss for people with mild to moderate obesity.

On the pharmaceutical front, other randomized controlled trials have shown that semaglutide is linked with as much as 17% total body weight loss at two years. Also, recent guidance from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) states that long-term treatment with a semaglutide is the preferred strategy for weight loss.

“However, concerns about the cost and the cost-effectiveness of these [less invasive] interventions have limited their usage in the USA,” the study authors write.

The aim of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing SG, ESG, semaglutide, and lifestyle interventions (LI) for patients with obesity in class I (defined as BMI 30-34.9 kg/m²), class II (35-29.9 kg/m²), and class III (>40kg/m²) obesity.

Researchers used a state-transition, semi-Markov microsimulation model to analyze the effectiveness of ESG, SG, semaglutide, and LI in a simulated 40-year-old with three different base-case scenarios of class I, II, or III obesity. They then performed a detailed threshold and sensitivity analysis to change the cost of treatment modalities and the semaglutide adherence rate. Outcome measures included a willingness-to-pay threshold of US $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
 

Cost-Effectiveness of Treatments

When the treatment modalities were compared with each other, findings showed that for class I obesity, ESG was cost effective (US $4,105/QALY). For class II and III obesity, SG was cost-effective as well (US $5,883/QALY) and (US $7,821/QALY), respectively.

In all classes of obesity, SG and ESG were cost-effective compared with LI. Semaglutide was not cost-effective compared with LI for class I, II, and III obesity (ICER US $508,414/QALY, $420,483/QALY, and $350,637/QALY, respectively).

“For semaglutide to be cost-effective when compared with ESG, it would have to cost less than US $1,879 (class III), US $1,204 (class II), or US $297 (class I) annually,” the authors note.

The authors addressed recent guidelines to consider bariatric surgery in all obese patients. They recommend SG remain the standard of care for patients with severe obesity.

But national projections show that SG would address only 0.5% of life-years lost due to obesity.

“Barring a dramatic increase in patient adherence, bariatric surgery will not likely successfully mitigate the harm from the obesity epidemic,” they write.

“ESG may fill this gap and provide an additional option for patients with obesity as it demonstrated sustained weight loss at 2-5 years.” While insurance coverage is limited, they write, “our model demonstrates that payer coverage for ESG would provide an alternative tool to combat the obesity epidemic as part of a multidisciplinary approach.”

Semaglutide shows sustained weight loss in trials for up to two years but has a substantial annual cost, the authors note.

At lower prices, semaglutide can make a “major impact on the obesity pandemic as it can be prescribed in multiple healthcare settings and due to increased patient interested in non-invasive obesity treatment,” they write.

One limitation to the study is a lack of long-term data available for ESG and semaglutide. Authors were also not able to use a lifetime horizon because of a lack of long-term weight loss.

One study author reports financial relationships with BSC, Cook Medical, Surgical Intuitive, and Olympus America. Another author reports relationships with ACI, AGA-Varia, BSC, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, Medtronic, Olympus, Virgo Systems; equity: AGA-Varia, Dark Canyon Labs, Endiatx, EndoSound, and Virgo Systems. The rest of the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

TOPLINE:

Severe sleep irregularity often occurs with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and this combination approximately doubled the odds of hypertension in middle-aged individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• OSA has demonstrated an association with hypertension, but data on the impact of sleep irregularity on this relationship are lacking.
• The researchers used the recently developed sleep regularity index (SRI) to determine sleep patterns using a scale of 0-100 (with higher numbers indicating greater regularity) to assess relationships between OSA, sleep patterns, and hypertension in 602 adults with a mean age of 57 years.
• The study’s goal was an assessment of the associations between sleep regularity, OSA, and hypertension in a community sample of adults with normal circadian patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds of OSA were significantly greater for individuals with mildly irregular or severely irregular sleep than for regular sleepers (odds ratios, 1.97 and 2.06, respectively).
• Individuals with OSA and severely irregular sleep had the highest odds of hypertension compared with individuals with no OSA and regular sleep (OR, 2.34).
• However, participants with OSA and regular sleep or mildly irregular sleep had no significant increase in hypertension risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Irregular sleep may be an important marker of OSA-related sleep disruption and may be an important modifiable health target,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kelly Sansom, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Sleep Science at the University of Western Australia, Albany. The study was published online in the journal Sleep.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality, and the SRI is a nonspecific measure that may capture a range of phenotypes with one score; other limitations included the small sample sizes of sleep regularity groups and the use of actigraphy to collect sleep times.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the Raine Study PhD Top-up Scholarship; the Raine Study Scholarship is supported by the NHMRC, the Centre for Sleep Science, School of Anatomy, Physiology & Human Biology of the University of Western Australia, and the Lions Eye Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Severe sleep irregularity often occurs with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and this combination approximately doubled the odds of hypertension in middle-aged individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• OSA has demonstrated an association with hypertension, but data on the impact of sleep irregularity on this relationship are lacking.
• The researchers used the recently developed sleep regularity index (SRI) to determine sleep patterns using a scale of 0-100 (with higher numbers indicating greater regularity) to assess relationships between OSA, sleep patterns, and hypertension in 602 adults with a mean age of 57 years.
• The study’s goal was an assessment of the associations between sleep regularity, OSA, and hypertension in a community sample of adults with normal circadian patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds of OSA were significantly greater for individuals with mildly irregular or severely irregular sleep than for regular sleepers (odds ratios, 1.97 and 2.06, respectively).
• Individuals with OSA and severely irregular sleep had the highest odds of hypertension compared with individuals with no OSA and regular sleep (OR, 2.34).
• However, participants with OSA and regular sleep or mildly irregular sleep had no significant increase in hypertension risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Irregular sleep may be an important marker of OSA-related sleep disruption and may be an important modifiable health target,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kelly Sansom, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Sleep Science at the University of Western Australia, Albany. The study was published online in the journal Sleep.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality, and the SRI is a nonspecific measure that may capture a range of phenotypes with one score; other limitations included the small sample sizes of sleep regularity groups and the use of actigraphy to collect sleep times.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the Raine Study PhD Top-up Scholarship; the Raine Study Scholarship is supported by the NHMRC, the Centre for Sleep Science, School of Anatomy, Physiology & Human Biology of the University of Western Australia, and the Lions Eye Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Severe sleep irregularity often occurs with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), and this combination approximately doubled the odds of hypertension in middle-aged individuals.

METHODOLOGY:

• OSA has demonstrated an association with hypertension, but data on the impact of sleep irregularity on this relationship are lacking.
• The researchers used the recently developed sleep regularity index (SRI) to determine sleep patterns using a scale of 0-100 (with higher numbers indicating greater regularity) to assess relationships between OSA, sleep patterns, and hypertension in 602 adults with a mean age of 57 years.
• The study’s goal was an assessment of the associations between sleep regularity, OSA, and hypertension in a community sample of adults with normal circadian patterns.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds of OSA were significantly greater for individuals with mildly irregular or severely irregular sleep than for regular sleepers (odds ratios, 1.97 and 2.06, respectively).
• Individuals with OSA and severely irregular sleep had the highest odds of hypertension compared with individuals with no OSA and regular sleep (OR, 2.34).
• However, participants with OSA and regular sleep or mildly irregular sleep had no significant increase in hypertension risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Irregular sleep may be an important marker of OSA-related sleep disruption and may be an important modifiable health target,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kelly Sansom, a PhD candidate at the Centre for Sleep Science at the University of Western Australia, Albany. The study was published online in the journal Sleep.

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality, and the SRI is a nonspecific measure that may capture a range of phenotypes with one score; other limitations included the small sample sizes of sleep regularity groups and the use of actigraphy to collect sleep times.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the Raine Study PhD Top-up Scholarship; the Raine Study Scholarship is supported by the NHMRC, the Centre for Sleep Science, School of Anatomy, Physiology & Human Biology of the University of Western Australia, and the Lions Eye Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
• The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
• The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
• The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
• Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
• Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.

IN PRACTICE:

“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

LIMITATIONS:

The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
• The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
• The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
• Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-day incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 3.3% and 3.0%, respectively, with the highest risk within the first 48 hours post TAVR, accounting for 69% of these events.
• After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
• Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
• SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.

In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.

LIMITATIONS:

The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.

DISCLOSURES:

The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
• The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
• The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
• Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-day incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 3.3% and 3.0%, respectively, with the highest risk within the first 48 hours post TAVR, accounting for 69% of these events.
• After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
• Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
• SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.

In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.

LIMITATIONS:

The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.

DISCLOSURES:

The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
• The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
• The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
• Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.

TAKEAWAY:

• The 30-day incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 3.3% and 3.0%, respectively, with the highest risk within the first 48 hours post TAVR, accounting for 69% of these events.
• After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
• Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
• SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.

In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”

SOURCE:

The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.

LIMITATIONS:

The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.

DISCLOSURES:

The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults using medical cannabis for chronic pain, especially those with cancer or cardiometabolic disease, have a slightly elevated risk of developing arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
• They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
• Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
• The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
• Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.

“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults using medical cannabis for chronic pain, especially those with cancer or cardiometabolic disease, have a slightly elevated risk of developing arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
• They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
• Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
• The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
• Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.

“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults using medical cannabis for chronic pain, especially those with cancer or cardiometabolic disease, have a slightly elevated risk of developing arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
• They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
• Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
• The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
• Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.

“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.