Family Practice News

TOPLINE:

Coffee consumption is associated with the abundance of the gut bacterium Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticus, suggesting that specific foods can affect the intestinal microbiome.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers selected coffee as a model to investigate the interplay between specific foods and the intestinal microbial community.
• They conducted a multicohort, multiomic analysis of US and UK populations with detailed dietary information from 22,867 participants, which they then integrated with public data from 211 cohorts comprising 54,198 participants.
• They conducted various in vitro experiments to expand and validate their findings, including adding coffee to media containing the L asaccharolyticus species that had been isolated from human feces.

TAKEAWAY:

• L asaccharolyticus is highly prevalent, with about fourfold higher average abundance in coffee drinkers, and its growth is stimulated in vitro by coffee supplementation.
• The link between coffee consumption and the microbiome was highly reproducible across different populations (area under the curve, 0.89), driven largely by the presence and abundance of L asaccharolyticus.
• Similar associations were found in analyses of data from 25 countries. The prevalence of the bacterium was high in European countries with high per capita coffee consumption, such as Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden, and very low in countries with low per capita coffee consumption, such as China, Argentina, and India.
• Plasma metabolomics on 438 samples identified several metabolites enriched among coffee drinkers, with quinic acid and its potential derivatives associated with both coffee and L asaccharolyticus.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides insights into how the gut microbiome potentially mediates the chemistry — and thus health benefits — of coffee,” the study authors wrote. “The microbial mechanisms underlying the metabolism of coffee are a step towards mapping the role of specific foods on the gut microbiome, and similar patterns of microorganism–food interactions for other dietary elements should be sought with systematic epidemiologic and metagenomic investigations.”

SOURCE:

Paolo Manghi, PhD, University of Trento, Italy, led the study, which was published online in Nature Microbiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on food questionnaires to assess coffee intake. The study is observational, and the clinical implications are unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by ZOE, a biotech company, and TwinsUK, an adult twin registry funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research — Clinical Research Network and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London. Manghi had no competing interests. Several other coauthors reported financial relationships with ZOE, and three are cofounders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

Coffee consumption is associated with the abundance of the gut bacterium Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticus, suggesting that specific foods can affect the intestinal microbiome.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers selected coffee as a model to investigate the interplay between specific foods and the intestinal microbial community.
• They conducted a multicohort, multiomic analysis of US and UK populations with detailed dietary information from 22,867 participants, which they then integrated with public data from 211 cohorts comprising 54,198 participants.
• They conducted various in vitro experiments to expand and validate their findings, including adding coffee to media containing the L asaccharolyticus species that had been isolated from human feces.

TAKEAWAY:

• L asaccharolyticus is highly prevalent, with about fourfold higher average abundance in coffee drinkers, and its growth is stimulated in vitro by coffee supplementation.
• The link between coffee consumption and the microbiome was highly reproducible across different populations (area under the curve, 0.89), driven largely by the presence and abundance of L asaccharolyticus.
• Similar associations were found in analyses of data from 25 countries. The prevalence of the bacterium was high in European countries with high per capita coffee consumption, such as Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden, and very low in countries with low per capita coffee consumption, such as China, Argentina, and India.
• Plasma metabolomics on 438 samples identified several metabolites enriched among coffee drinkers, with quinic acid and its potential derivatives associated with both coffee and L asaccharolyticus.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides insights into how the gut microbiome potentially mediates the chemistry — and thus health benefits — of coffee,” the study authors wrote. “The microbial mechanisms underlying the metabolism of coffee are a step towards mapping the role of specific foods on the gut microbiome, and similar patterns of microorganism–food interactions for other dietary elements should be sought with systematic epidemiologic and metagenomic investigations.”

SOURCE:

Paolo Manghi, PhD, University of Trento, Italy, led the study, which was published online in Nature Microbiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on food questionnaires to assess coffee intake. The study is observational, and the clinical implications are unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by ZOE, a biotech company, and TwinsUK, an adult twin registry funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research — Clinical Research Network and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London. Manghi had no competing interests. Several other coauthors reported financial relationships with ZOE, and three are cofounders of the company.

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

TOPLINE:

Coffee consumption is associated with the abundance of the gut bacterium Lawsonibacter asaccharolyticus, suggesting that specific foods can affect the intestinal microbiome.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers selected coffee as a model to investigate the interplay between specific foods and the intestinal microbial community.
• They conducted a multicohort, multiomic analysis of US and UK populations with detailed dietary information from 22,867 participants, which they then integrated with public data from 211 cohorts comprising 54,198 participants.
• They conducted various in vitro experiments to expand and validate their findings, including adding coffee to media containing the L asaccharolyticus species that had been isolated from human feces.

TAKEAWAY:

• L asaccharolyticus is highly prevalent, with about fourfold higher average abundance in coffee drinkers, and its growth is stimulated in vitro by coffee supplementation.
• The link between coffee consumption and the microbiome was highly reproducible across different populations (area under the curve, 0.89), driven largely by the presence and abundance of L asaccharolyticus.
• Similar associations were found in analyses of data from 25 countries. The prevalence of the bacterium was high in European countries with high per capita coffee consumption, such as Luxembourg, Denmark, and Sweden, and very low in countries with low per capita coffee consumption, such as China, Argentina, and India.
• Plasma metabolomics on 438 samples identified several metabolites enriched among coffee drinkers, with quinic acid and its potential derivatives associated with both coffee and L asaccharolyticus.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study provides insights into how the gut microbiome potentially mediates the chemistry — and thus health benefits — of coffee,” the study authors wrote. “The microbial mechanisms underlying the metabolism of coffee are a step towards mapping the role of specific foods on the gut microbiome, and similar patterns of microorganism–food interactions for other dietary elements should be sought with systematic epidemiologic and metagenomic investigations.”

SOURCE:

Paolo Manghi, PhD, University of Trento, Italy, led the study, which was published online in Nature Microbiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors relied on food questionnaires to assess coffee intake. The study is observational, and the clinical implications are unknown.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by ZOE, a biotech company, and TwinsUK, an adult twin registry funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the National Institute for Health and Care Research — Clinical Research Network and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London. Manghi had no competing interests. Several other coauthors reported financial relationships with ZOE, and three are cofounders of the company.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning about liver injury to fezolinetant (Veozah), a drug often prescribed for hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement.

The warning is based on data from a postmarketing report of an individual who experienced elevated liver blood test values as well as symptoms of liver injury after approximately 40 days of taking fezolinetant, according to the statement.

The boxed warning is in addition to the existing warning about elevated liver blood test values and requirements for liver blood testing in the prescribing information.

The updated information also includes recommendations to increase the frequency of liver blood testing to monthly testing for 2 months after starting fezolinetant, then following the previous recommendations for testing at 3, 6, and 9 months.

In addition, the new information advises patients to discontinue the drug immediately and contact their prescribing healthcare professional if signs of liver injury occur, according to the statement. These signs may include nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stool, jaundice, dark urine, abdominal swelling, or pain in the right upper abdomen.

The risk for liver injury is real, but rare, said Kathryn Marko, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, in an interview.

Clinicians should advise patients that their liver function will be monitored closely if they take fezolinetant, Marko said. If elevations in liver function tests occur, they often return to normal after stopping the drug.

 

Clinical Implications and Research Gaps

The boxed warning may affect prescribing patterns in that patients or clinicians may fear the risk for liver injury, Marko said. “In addition, patients may be hesitant to start a medication that requires frequent blood test monitoring.” However, many alternative treatments are available for vasomotor symptoms of menopause, including hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, and patients and physicians should work together to come up with the best option for each individual.

“More research is needed to discover new therapies for menopause,” said Marko. “Veozah is unique in its mechanism of action, and it would be wonderful to see more new medications coming down the pipeline.”

Marko had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning about liver injury to fezolinetant (Veozah), a drug often prescribed for hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement.

The warning is based on data from a postmarketing report of an individual who experienced elevated liver blood test values as well as symptoms of liver injury after approximately 40 days of taking fezolinetant, according to the statement.

The boxed warning is in addition to the existing warning about elevated liver blood test values and requirements for liver blood testing in the prescribing information.

The updated information also includes recommendations to increase the frequency of liver blood testing to monthly testing for 2 months after starting fezolinetant, then following the previous recommendations for testing at 3, 6, and 9 months.

In addition, the new information advises patients to discontinue the drug immediately and contact their prescribing healthcare professional if signs of liver injury occur, according to the statement. These signs may include nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stool, jaundice, dark urine, abdominal swelling, or pain in the right upper abdomen.

The risk for liver injury is real, but rare, said Kathryn Marko, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, in an interview.

Clinicians should advise patients that their liver function will be monitored closely if they take fezolinetant, Marko said. If elevations in liver function tests occur, they often return to normal after stopping the drug.

 

Clinical Implications and Research Gaps

The boxed warning may affect prescribing patterns in that patients or clinicians may fear the risk for liver injury, Marko said. “In addition, patients may be hesitant to start a medication that requires frequent blood test monitoring.” However, many alternative treatments are available for vasomotor symptoms of menopause, including hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, and patients and physicians should work together to come up with the best option for each individual.

“More research is needed to discover new therapies for menopause,” said Marko. “Veozah is unique in its mechanism of action, and it would be wonderful to see more new medications coming down the pipeline.”

Marko had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has added a boxed warning about liver injury to fezolinetant (Veozah), a drug often prescribed for hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement.

The warning is based on data from a postmarketing report of an individual who experienced elevated liver blood test values as well as symptoms of liver injury after approximately 40 days of taking fezolinetant, according to the statement.

The boxed warning is in addition to the existing warning about elevated liver blood test values and requirements for liver blood testing in the prescribing information.

The updated information also includes recommendations to increase the frequency of liver blood testing to monthly testing for 2 months after starting fezolinetant, then following the previous recommendations for testing at 3, 6, and 9 months.

In addition, the new information advises patients to discontinue the drug immediately and contact their prescribing healthcare professional if signs of liver injury occur, according to the statement. These signs may include nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stool, jaundice, dark urine, abdominal swelling, or pain in the right upper abdomen.

The risk for liver injury is real, but rare, said Kathryn Marko, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, in an interview.

Clinicians should advise patients that their liver function will be monitored closely if they take fezolinetant, Marko said. If elevations in liver function tests occur, they often return to normal after stopping the drug.

 

Clinical Implications and Research Gaps

The boxed warning may affect prescribing patterns in that patients or clinicians may fear the risk for liver injury, Marko said. “In addition, patients may be hesitant to start a medication that requires frequent blood test monitoring.” However, many alternative treatments are available for vasomotor symptoms of menopause, including hormonal and nonhormonal therapies, and patients and physicians should work together to come up with the best option for each individual.

“More research is needed to discover new therapies for menopause,” said Marko. “Veozah is unique in its mechanism of action, and it would be wonderful to see more new medications coming down the pipeline.”

Marko had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

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

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

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

For almost 2 decades, antidepressants have carried boxed warnings linking the medications to an increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. Paradoxically, and for almost as long, evidence suggests these warnings may have led to fewer depression diagnoses, reduced prescriptions, and, ultimately, higher suicide rates.

With mounting evidence of these negative unintended consequences, some clinicians and researchers are urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider revising — or even eliminating — boxed warnings on these medications.

The latest report challenging the utility of the 2005 warnings was particularly sobering. Published in October in Health Affairs, the systematic review of studies from 2003 to 2022 showed a 20%-40% decline in physician visits for depression, a 20%-50% decline in antidepressant use, and an abrupt increase in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicides — all after the warnings were added.

“FDA officials should review the totality of evidence and err on the side of caution in acknowledging possible harms of the antidepressant warnings,” lead author Stephen Soumerai, ScD, professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts and colleagues wrote. They called on the FDA to replace the boxed warnings with a routine warning in labeling.

While good prospective data on the risks and benefits of antidepressants in youth were limited when the boxed warnings were instituted, there is more information now, said Jeffrey Strawn, MD, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Ohio. Strawn, whose research on the topic has been cited frequently over the years, said the new evidence suggests it is time for the FDA to reevaluate the warnings.

“I don’t think that they’ve been useful. They’ve actually been harmful,” Strawn told this news organization. “These boxed warnings have decreased physicians’ and other clinicians’ comfort and tendency to prescribe.”

 

Decline in Diagnoses

The FDA issued its first warning about the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior in children in 2003. After an advisory panel weighed the evidence, the agency added a boxed warning in 2005 to all antidepressants for children younger than 18 years. The warning was expanded in 2007 to include young adults through age 24.

Data suggesting that the warnings have had unintended effects can be found going back to just after they were issued. For instance, in 2009, after rising for years, the rate of new pediatric depression diagnoses fell precipitously after the warning was added, with primary care physicians diagnosing 44% fewer cases.

In 2014, citing evidence of fewer diagnoses and rising psychotropic drug poisonings, Weill Cornell Medicine Professor Richard A. Friedman, MD, called on the FDA in a perspective to remove the boxed warnings.

Strawn and colleagues reported in an often-cited 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis that, in nine trials involving 1673 patients and six medications, antidepressants were superior to placebo, with no increased risk for suicidal thoughts or behavior.

He has also studied adverse effects of the medications, reporting in Pharmacotherapy that suicidality risk might be more likely with some medications, such as paroxetine and venlafaxine, and that it could be influenced by baseline suicidality, among many other factors. A Swedish register study found that risk was highest the month before starting a medication, Strawn and colleagues wrote.

Dara Sakolsky, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and associate medical director, Services for Teens at Risk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that, because of “these negative unintended consequences,” the FDA should lower the temperature by putting the warnings in labeling.

“It makes sense based on the data that we have at hand now,” said Sakolsky.

 

The Dangers of Untreated Depression

Even with this new information, lingering concerns about earlier studies that pointed to increased suicidality risk may discourage prescribing by primary care physicians and pediatricians, and that worries researchers and psychiatrists.

“My concern is that the risk for suicide and suicidal behavior may be higher in untreated depression than the risk of suicidal thoughts or behaviors from antidepressants,” Jeffrey Bridge, PhD, director of the Center for Suicide Prevention and Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, told this news organization.

Bridge is the lead author of a much-cited 2007 meta-analysis in JAMA that showed that the benefits of antidepressants in children and adolescents appeared to be greater than the risks for suicidality. “The concern about antidepressants must be considered in the context of possible benefit,” wrote Bridge, who also is professor of pediatrics, psychiatry, and behavioral health at Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Depression and suicide are a scourge for those younger than 25 years. A 2021 literature review noted that the prevalence of depression — which has been increasing for all Americans — has risen more among adolescents than adults. Depression is “strongly associated with suicide,” the authors wrote.

In 2021, the National Institute of Mental Health reported suicide was the second leading cause of death among 10- to 14-year-olds and the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-24 years.

Suicide kills more kids aged between 10 and 24 years than cancer and all other illnesses combined, John Campo, MD, director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and vice president of psychiatric services at Kennedy Krieger Institute, told this news organization.

Meanwhile, he added, the medications work and clinicians balance risk and benefit in prescribing.

The landmark 2007 Treatment for Adolescents with Depression Study showed that fluoxetine, especially in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), was significantly better than placebo. Since that time, legions of trials have shown the drugs’ effectiveness.

The most effective treatment for teen depression is a combination of CBT and a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, said Sakolsky.

“We know that the evidence for that is pretty good,” she said. “On the flip side, we know the risk of having an adverse outcome is pretty low.”

Sakolsky tells patients and families that perhaps 1 in 146 will have a suicidal thought or behavior. “That’s pretty rare when we know how effective these medicines are.” 

Strawn said he always notes that no suicides took place in the trials that led to the warning and stresses that he closely monitors patients. “While the more recent prospective data are reassuring,” the suicidality risk “is something that we still talk about,” he said. He also discusses how some antidepressants seem to increase risk more than others.

For Campo, the discussion is based on his reading of the evidence, not the presence of the FDA warning.

“Based on what we know, I still think it’s fair to proceed with the idea that there is a small, but real risk,” he said. However, “at the same time, the medications might be exceptionally helpful for some kids.”

 

‘What Do We Do Now?’

When the FDA issued its warning in 2005, the agency said it identified the risk for suicidality in a combined analysis of short-term placebo-controlled trials of nine antidepressants. It ultimately included 24 trials involving more than 4400 patients. The risk was highest in the first few months. The average risk for those taking antidepressants was 4%, twice the placebo risk of 2%. There were no suicides in these trials, however.

The trials relied on spontaneous reports of adverse events, not predetermined measures, Campo said. Even so, that 2% difference is “nothing to sneeze at,” he noted.

Bridge’s meta-analysis showed a smaller difference — closer to 0.7%. “But it was still statistically significant,” Campo said. “I have trouble ignoring that.”

The unintended consequences of the warning can’t be studied in a randomized controlled trial. Studies have shown an association but not a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the warning and a decline in treatment and rise in suicides.

But the potential for suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressants has been studied prospectively. Some older studies found a significant risk, while more recent trials have not.

While the Health Affairs analysis “certainly makes a strong case,” it is observational data, Campo said.

“The question is, what do we do now in retrospect? Do you say, ‘Never mind. We don’t need the black box warning anymore?’ ” he said. “That would require a pretty careful look.”

The Health Affairs paper “makes me think that there are other areas of research that that need to be completed and done and updated, and then there should be an assessment, a reevaluation from the FDA,” said Bridge. A new meta-analysis “would be very informative,” he said.

 

What’s Next?

When asked about the Health Affairs paper and whether the agency would review the warnings, an FDA spokesperson told this news organization that the agency “does not comment on specific studies but evaluates them as part of the body of evidence to further our understanding about a particular issue and assist in our mission to protect public health.”

Sakolsky said the data clearly point to the damage that the warning has done over the past 2 decades, but that things might be improving. Studies conducted more recently might not have captured some changes in practice.

For instance, she noted, in 2022, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended screening for major depressive disorder in adolescents aged 12-18 years. In turn, she has seen more patients in her office who were referred by pediatricians who had conducted the screening, said Sakolsky.

Strawn said the time for pontificating is long past due. “We’re withholding medications and other treatments that could potentially be effective for disorders that, in and of themselves, are associated with a significant increase in the risk of suicide.” 

After the FDA instituted the warning, “we were all very nervous,” about the potential fallout, said Campo, adding that a part of him wishes that the warnings had been “more mundane and less dramatic.”

Despite the unintended consequences, “it’s going to be hard to put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

Campo and Sakolsky reported no relevant financial relationships. Strawn disclosed that his institution has received research funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and AbbVie. Bridge reported that he received grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and PCORI; is a scientific adviser to Clarigent Health; and is on the Scientific Council of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.

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

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States are expected to rise from 5.03 per 100,000 persons in 2022 to 6.39 per 100,000 persons by 2040. Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) will likely become the leading cause of HCC-related mortality by 2026, and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is projected to become the second leading cause by 2032, a new analysis found. 

METHODOLOGY:

• HCC accounts for 75%-85% of primary liver cancers and most liver cancer deaths. Researchers have observed an upward trend in the incidence of and mortality from HCC in the past 2 decades.
• This cross-sectional study analyzed 188,280 HCC-related deaths among adults aged 25 and older to determine trends in mortality rates and project age-standardized mortality rates through 2040. Data came from the National Vital Statistics System database from 2006 to 2022.
• Researchers stratified mortality data by etiology of liver disease (ALD, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and MASLD), age groups (25-64 or 65 and older years), sex, and race/ethnicity.
• Demographic data showed that 77.4% of deaths occurred in men, 55.6% in individuals aged 65 years or older, and 62.3% in White individuals.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the age-standardized mortality rate for HCC-related deaths increased from 3.65 per 100,000 persons in 2006 to 5.03 in 2022 and was projected to increase to 6.39 per 100,000 persons by 2040.
• Sex- and age-related disparities were substantial. Men had much higher rates of HCC-related mortality than women (8.15 vs 2.33 per 100,000 persons), with a projected rate among men of 9.78 per 100,000 persons by 2040. HCC-related mortality rates for people aged 65 years or older were 10 times higher than for those aged 25-64 years (18.37 vs 1.79 per 100,000 persons) in 2022 and was projected to reach 32.81 per 100,000 persons by 2040 in the older group.
• Although hepatitis C virus–related deaths were projected to decline from 0.69 to 0.03 per 100,000 persons by 2034, ALD- and MASLD-related deaths showed increasing trends, with both projected to become the two leading causes of HCC-related mortality in the next few years.
• Racial disparities were also evident. By 2040, the American Indian/Alaska Native population showed the highest increase in projected HCC-related mortality rates, which went from 5.46 per 100,000 persons in 2006 to a project increase to 14.71 per 100,000 persons.

IN PRACTICE:

“HCC mortality was projected to continue increasing in the US, primarily due to rising rates of deaths attributable to ALD and MASLD,” the authors wrote. 

This “study highlights the importance of addressing these conditions to decrease the burden of liver disease and liver disease mortality in the future,” Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sikai Qiu, MM, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The National Vital Statistics System database used in this study captured only mortality data without access to detailed clinical records or individual medical histories. Researchers could not analyze socioeconomic factors or individual-level risk factors owing to data anonymization requirements. Additionally, the inclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic period could have influenced observed trends and reliability of future projections.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Several authors reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, or research support from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States are expected to rise from 5.03 per 100,000 persons in 2022 to 6.39 per 100,000 persons by 2040. Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) will likely become the leading cause of HCC-related mortality by 2026, and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is projected to become the second leading cause by 2032, a new analysis found. 

METHODOLOGY:

• HCC accounts for 75%-85% of primary liver cancers and most liver cancer deaths. Researchers have observed an upward trend in the incidence of and mortality from HCC in the past 2 decades.
• This cross-sectional study analyzed 188,280 HCC-related deaths among adults aged 25 and older to determine trends in mortality rates and project age-standardized mortality rates through 2040. Data came from the National Vital Statistics System database from 2006 to 2022.
• Researchers stratified mortality data by etiology of liver disease (ALD, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and MASLD), age groups (25-64 or 65 and older years), sex, and race/ethnicity.
• Demographic data showed that 77.4% of deaths occurred in men, 55.6% in individuals aged 65 years or older, and 62.3% in White individuals.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the age-standardized mortality rate for HCC-related deaths increased from 3.65 per 100,000 persons in 2006 to 5.03 in 2022 and was projected to increase to 6.39 per 100,000 persons by 2040.
• Sex- and age-related disparities were substantial. Men had much higher rates of HCC-related mortality than women (8.15 vs 2.33 per 100,000 persons), with a projected rate among men of 9.78 per 100,000 persons by 2040. HCC-related mortality rates for people aged 65 years or older were 10 times higher than for those aged 25-64 years (18.37 vs 1.79 per 100,000 persons) in 2022 and was projected to reach 32.81 per 100,000 persons by 2040 in the older group.
• Although hepatitis C virus–related deaths were projected to decline from 0.69 to 0.03 per 100,000 persons by 2034, ALD- and MASLD-related deaths showed increasing trends, with both projected to become the two leading causes of HCC-related mortality in the next few years.
• Racial disparities were also evident. By 2040, the American Indian/Alaska Native population showed the highest increase in projected HCC-related mortality rates, which went from 5.46 per 100,000 persons in 2006 to a project increase to 14.71 per 100,000 persons.

IN PRACTICE:

“HCC mortality was projected to continue increasing in the US, primarily due to rising rates of deaths attributable to ALD and MASLD,” the authors wrote. 

This “study highlights the importance of addressing these conditions to decrease the burden of liver disease and liver disease mortality in the future,” Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sikai Qiu, MM, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The National Vital Statistics System database used in this study captured only mortality data without access to detailed clinical records or individual medical histories. Researchers could not analyze socioeconomic factors or individual-level risk factors owing to data anonymization requirements. Additionally, the inclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic period could have influenced observed trends and reliability of future projections.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Several authors reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, or research support from various sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Age-standardized mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the United States are expected to rise from 5.03 per 100,000 persons in 2022 to 6.39 per 100,000 persons by 2040. Alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) will likely become the leading cause of HCC-related mortality by 2026, and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is projected to become the second leading cause by 2032, a new analysis found. 

METHODOLOGY:

• HCC accounts for 75%-85% of primary liver cancers and most liver cancer deaths. Researchers have observed an upward trend in the incidence of and mortality from HCC in the past 2 decades.
• This cross-sectional study analyzed 188,280 HCC-related deaths among adults aged 25 and older to determine trends in mortality rates and project age-standardized mortality rates through 2040. Data came from the National Vital Statistics System database from 2006 to 2022.
• Researchers stratified mortality data by etiology of liver disease (ALD, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and MASLD), age groups (25-64 or 65 and older years), sex, and race/ethnicity.
• Demographic data showed that 77.4% of deaths occurred in men, 55.6% in individuals aged 65 years or older, and 62.3% in White individuals.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the age-standardized mortality rate for HCC-related deaths increased from 3.65 per 100,000 persons in 2006 to 5.03 in 2022 and was projected to increase to 6.39 per 100,000 persons by 2040.
• Sex- and age-related disparities were substantial. Men had much higher rates of HCC-related mortality than women (8.15 vs 2.33 per 100,000 persons), with a projected rate among men of 9.78 per 100,000 persons by 2040. HCC-related mortality rates for people aged 65 years or older were 10 times higher than for those aged 25-64 years (18.37 vs 1.79 per 100,000 persons) in 2022 and was projected to reach 32.81 per 100,000 persons by 2040 in the older group.
• Although hepatitis C virus–related deaths were projected to decline from 0.69 to 0.03 per 100,000 persons by 2034, ALD- and MASLD-related deaths showed increasing trends, with both projected to become the two leading causes of HCC-related mortality in the next few years.
• Racial disparities were also evident. By 2040, the American Indian/Alaska Native population showed the highest increase in projected HCC-related mortality rates, which went from 5.46 per 100,000 persons in 2006 to a project increase to 14.71 per 100,000 persons.

IN PRACTICE:

“HCC mortality was projected to continue increasing in the US, primarily due to rising rates of deaths attributable to ALD and MASLD,” the authors wrote. 

This “study highlights the importance of addressing these conditions to decrease the burden of liver disease and liver disease mortality in the future,” Emad Qayed, MD, MPH, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sikai Qiu, MM, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, and was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The National Vital Statistics System database used in this study captured only mortality data without access to detailed clinical records or individual medical histories. Researchers could not analyze socioeconomic factors or individual-level risk factors owing to data anonymization requirements. Additionally, the inclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic period could have influenced observed trends and reliability of future projections.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Several authors reported receiving consulting fees, speaking fees, or research support from various sources.

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

An individual’s estimated risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years is widely used to guide preventative medication prescriptions with statins or antihypertensive drugs in those who have not yet had such an event.

To estimate that risk, doctors use equations that include different risk factors, such as age, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. The current equations, known as the pooled cohort equations, are considered to be outdated as they were developed in 2013 based on population data from the 1960s and 70s. A new set of risk equations — known as the PREVENT equations — were developed by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 2023, and are based on a more contemporary population. It is anticipated that AHA will recommend these new risk equations be used in clinical practice in the next primary prevention guidelines.

But could these new risk equations do more harm than good?

Two recent studies found that applying the PREVENT risk equations to the US population results in a much lower overall level of risk compared with the pooled cohort equations. And, if the current threshold for starting statin treatment — which is an estimated 7.5% risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years — is kept the same, this would result in many fewer patients being eligible for statin treatment.

As cardiovascular risk is also used to guide antihypertensive treatment, the new risk equations would also result in fewer people with borderline high blood pressure being eligible for those medications.

This has raised concerns in the medical community, where there is a widespread view that many more people would benefit from primary prevention treatment, and that anything that may cause fewer people to receive these medications would be harmful. 

“I believe the new equations more accurately predict the risk of the current US population, but we need to be aware of what effect that may have on use of statins,” said Tim Anderson, MD, who studies healthcare delivery at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and is lead author of one of the studies evaluating the equations.

Anderson told this news organization that the pooled cohort equations have long been viewed as problematic. 

“Because these equations were based on cohorts from the 1960s and 70s, it is believed they overestimate the current population’s risk of MI and stroke as the burden of disease has shifted in the intervening 50-60 years,” he said.

 

Current Equations Overestimate Risk

The new equations are based on more recent, representative, and diverse cohorts that capture a wider spectrum of the population in terms of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. They also include factors that are now known to be relevant to cardiovascular risk, such as chronic kidney disease.

Anderson compared how the two sets of equations estimated risk of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years in the US population using the NHANES survey — a large nationally representative survey conducted between 2017 and 2020. 

He found that the pooled cohort equations estimated the population average 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease to be about 8%, but the PREVENT equations estimated it at just over 4%.

“The new equations estimate that the middle-aged US population have almost half the level of risk of MI and stroke over next 10 years compared with the equations used currently. So, we will substantially change risk estimates if the new equations are introduced into practice,” Anderson said. 

The study found that, if the PREVENT equations are adopted in the next set of primary prevention guidelines and the current threshold of a 7.5% risk of having an MI or stroke in the next 10 years is maintained as the starting point for statin treatment, then 17.3 million adults who were previously recommended primary prevention statin therapy would no longer be eligible.

A second, similar study, conducted by a different team of US researchers, estimated that using PREVENT would decrease the number of US adults receiving or recommended for statin therapy by 14.3 million and antihypertensive therapy by 2.62 million.

The researchers, led by James A. Diao, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, also suggested that over 10 years, reductions in treatment eligibility could result in an estimated 107,000 additional MI or stroke events.

Anderson points out that using the new equations would not affect the highest-risk patients. “They are still going to be high risk whichever equations are used. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, have very high blood pressure or cholesterol and are older, then you are high risk. That part hasn’t changed. These people will qualify for statin treatment many times over with both sets of guidelines,” he said. 

Rather it will be the large population at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease that will be affected, with far fewer of these individuals likely to get statins.

“If you are on the fence about whether to take a statin or not and you’re currently just on the threshold where they might be recommended then these new equations could mean that you’ll be less likely to be offered them,” he said. “Using the new equations may result in a delay of a couple of years to have that conversation.”

 

A Red Flag

Steve Nissen, MD, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, is not a fan of cardiovascular risk equations in general. He points out that less than half of those currently eligible for statins are actually treated. And he believes the studies suggesting fewer people will be eligible with the new risk equations raise a red flag on whether they should be used.

“Anything that may result in fewer people being treated is a huge problem,” he told this news organization. “We have abundant evidence that we should be treating more people, not fewer people. Every study we have done has shown benefit with statins.”

The risk calculators were initially developed to limit use of statins and other medications to high-risk patients, he said, but now that we know more about safety of these drugs, it’s clear that the risks are almost nonexistent. 

“We really need something else to guide the prescription of statins,” said Nissen.

Nissen suggests the risk calculators and guidelines have resulted in undertreatment of the population because they lack nuance and put too much emphasis on age. We should be more interested in reducing the lifetime risk of cardiovascular events, he said. “Calculators don’t do a good job of that. Their time horizons are too short. Young people with a family history of cardiovascular disease may have a low 10-year risk on a risk calculator but their lifetime risk is elevated, and as such, they should be considered for statin treatment. We need to find a more nuanced approach to understanding the lifetime risk of individuals,” he said. 

Nissen said risk calculators can be useful in high-risk patients to help demonstrate their need for treatment. “I can show them the calculator and that they have a 20% chance of an event — that can help convince them to take a statin.” 

But at the lower end of the risk scale, “all it does is keep patients who should be getting treatment from having that treatment.”

Nissen said changing the risk calculator won’t affect how he treats patients. “I use judgment to decide who to treat based on scientific literature and the patient in front of me. We will engage in a discussion and make a shared decision on what is the best course of action. Calculators will never be a substitute for medical judgment,” he said.

 

Equations Don’t Decide

Sadiya Khan, MD, a cardiologist at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, and lead author of the PREVENT equations, told this news organization that it is important to put this discussion into context.

“The two recent papers do a good job of describing differences in predictive risk between the two sets of equations but that’s where they stop,” she said. “The translation from that to the decision on who should or should not be on statins or other medications is a step too far.”

Clinical guidelines will need to be updated to take the PREVENT equations into account, as Khan argued in a JAMA editorial. So it is not clear whether the current 7.5% 10-year risk figure will remain the threshold to start treatment. Khan anticipates the guidelines committee will have to re-evaluate that threshold.

“The 7.5% risk threshold was advised in the 2013 guidelines, based on what we knew then about the balance between benefit and harm and with the knowledge that the risk equations overestimated risk,” she said. “We now have a lot more data on the safety of statin therapy. We see this frequently in preventive care. Treatments often becomes more widespread in time and use expands into lower-risk patients.”

She also pointed out that the current primary prevention guidelines encourage consideration of other factors, not just predictive risk scores, when thinking about starting statins, including very high LDL cholesterol, family history, and apo B and Lp(a) levels.

“The recommendation on who would qualify for statin therapy is not based on one number,” she said. “It is based on many considerations, including both qualitative and quantitative factors, and discussions between the patient and the doctor. It is not a straightforward yes or no based on a 7.5% risk threshold.”

The equations, she said, should only be viewed as the first step in the process, and she said she agrees with Nissen that when applying the equations, doctors need to use additional data from each individual patient to make a judgment. “Equations do not decide who gets treated. Clinical practice guidelines do that.” 

Khan also agreed with Nissen that more effort is needed to identify longer term cardiovascular risk in younger people, and so the PREVENT equations include 30-year risk estimates.

“I totally agree that we need to start earlier in having these prevention conversations. The PREVENT model starts at age 30 which is 10 years earlier than the pooled cohort equations and they add a 30-year time horizon as well as the 10-year period for these discussions on predicted risk estimates,” she said. “We need to make sure we are not missing risk in young adults just because we are waiting for them to get into some arbitrary age category.”

Khan says she believes that, used correctly, the new equations will not limit access to statins or other cardiovascular treatments. “Because they are a more accurate reflection of risk in the contemporary population, the new PREVENT equations should identify the correct patients to be treated, within the confines of knowing that no risk prediction equation is perfect,” she said. “And if everything else is considered as well, not just the numbers in the risk equations, it shouldn’t result in fewer patients being treated.”

Anderson reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the US Deprescribing Research Network. Nissen is leading a development program for a nonprescription low dose of rosuvastatin. He is also involved in trials of a new cholesterol lowering drug, obicetrapib, and on trials on drugs that lower Lp(a). Khan reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

An individual’s estimated risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years is widely used to guide preventative medication prescriptions with statins or antihypertensive drugs in those who have not yet had such an event.

To estimate that risk, doctors use equations that include different risk factors, such as age, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. The current equations, known as the pooled cohort equations, are considered to be outdated as they were developed in 2013 based on population data from the 1960s and 70s. A new set of risk equations — known as the PREVENT equations — were developed by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 2023, and are based on a more contemporary population. It is anticipated that AHA will recommend these new risk equations be used in clinical practice in the next primary prevention guidelines.

But could these new risk equations do more harm than good?

Two recent studies found that applying the PREVENT risk equations to the US population results in a much lower overall level of risk compared with the pooled cohort equations. And, if the current threshold for starting statin treatment — which is an estimated 7.5% risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years — is kept the same, this would result in many fewer patients being eligible for statin treatment.

As cardiovascular risk is also used to guide antihypertensive treatment, the new risk equations would also result in fewer people with borderline high blood pressure being eligible for those medications.

This has raised concerns in the medical community, where there is a widespread view that many more people would benefit from primary prevention treatment, and that anything that may cause fewer people to receive these medications would be harmful. 

“I believe the new equations more accurately predict the risk of the current US population, but we need to be aware of what effect that may have on use of statins,” said Tim Anderson, MD, who studies healthcare delivery at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and is lead author of one of the studies evaluating the equations.

Anderson told this news organization that the pooled cohort equations have long been viewed as problematic. 

“Because these equations were based on cohorts from the 1960s and 70s, it is believed they overestimate the current population’s risk of MI and stroke as the burden of disease has shifted in the intervening 50-60 years,” he said.

 

Current Equations Overestimate Risk

The new equations are based on more recent, representative, and diverse cohorts that capture a wider spectrum of the population in terms of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. They also include factors that are now known to be relevant to cardiovascular risk, such as chronic kidney disease.

Anderson compared how the two sets of equations estimated risk of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years in the US population using the NHANES survey — a large nationally representative survey conducted between 2017 and 2020. 

He found that the pooled cohort equations estimated the population average 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease to be about 8%, but the PREVENT equations estimated it at just over 4%.

“The new equations estimate that the middle-aged US population have almost half the level of risk of MI and stroke over next 10 years compared with the equations used currently. So, we will substantially change risk estimates if the new equations are introduced into practice,” Anderson said. 

The study found that, if the PREVENT equations are adopted in the next set of primary prevention guidelines and the current threshold of a 7.5% risk of having an MI or stroke in the next 10 years is maintained as the starting point for statin treatment, then 17.3 million adults who were previously recommended primary prevention statin therapy would no longer be eligible.

A second, similar study, conducted by a different team of US researchers, estimated that using PREVENT would decrease the number of US adults receiving or recommended for statin therapy by 14.3 million and antihypertensive therapy by 2.62 million.

The researchers, led by James A. Diao, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, also suggested that over 10 years, reductions in treatment eligibility could result in an estimated 107,000 additional MI or stroke events.

Anderson points out that using the new equations would not affect the highest-risk patients. “They are still going to be high risk whichever equations are used. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, have very high blood pressure or cholesterol and are older, then you are high risk. That part hasn’t changed. These people will qualify for statin treatment many times over with both sets of guidelines,” he said. 

Rather it will be the large population at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease that will be affected, with far fewer of these individuals likely to get statins.

“If you are on the fence about whether to take a statin or not and you’re currently just on the threshold where they might be recommended then these new equations could mean that you’ll be less likely to be offered them,” he said. “Using the new equations may result in a delay of a couple of years to have that conversation.”

 

A Red Flag

Steve Nissen, MD, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, is not a fan of cardiovascular risk equations in general. He points out that less than half of those currently eligible for statins are actually treated. And he believes the studies suggesting fewer people will be eligible with the new risk equations raise a red flag on whether they should be used.

“Anything that may result in fewer people being treated is a huge problem,” he told this news organization. “We have abundant evidence that we should be treating more people, not fewer people. Every study we have done has shown benefit with statins.”

The risk calculators were initially developed to limit use of statins and other medications to high-risk patients, he said, but now that we know more about safety of these drugs, it’s clear that the risks are almost nonexistent. 

“We really need something else to guide the prescription of statins,” said Nissen.

Nissen suggests the risk calculators and guidelines have resulted in undertreatment of the population because they lack nuance and put too much emphasis on age. We should be more interested in reducing the lifetime risk of cardiovascular events, he said. “Calculators don’t do a good job of that. Their time horizons are too short. Young people with a family history of cardiovascular disease may have a low 10-year risk on a risk calculator but their lifetime risk is elevated, and as such, they should be considered for statin treatment. We need to find a more nuanced approach to understanding the lifetime risk of individuals,” he said. 

Nissen said risk calculators can be useful in high-risk patients to help demonstrate their need for treatment. “I can show them the calculator and that they have a 20% chance of an event — that can help convince them to take a statin.” 

But at the lower end of the risk scale, “all it does is keep patients who should be getting treatment from having that treatment.”

Nissen said changing the risk calculator won’t affect how he treats patients. “I use judgment to decide who to treat based on scientific literature and the patient in front of me. We will engage in a discussion and make a shared decision on what is the best course of action. Calculators will never be a substitute for medical judgment,” he said.

 

Equations Don’t Decide

Sadiya Khan, MD, a cardiologist at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, and lead author of the PREVENT equations, told this news organization that it is important to put this discussion into context.

“The two recent papers do a good job of describing differences in predictive risk between the two sets of equations but that’s where they stop,” she said. “The translation from that to the decision on who should or should not be on statins or other medications is a step too far.”

Clinical guidelines will need to be updated to take the PREVENT equations into account, as Khan argued in a JAMA editorial. So it is not clear whether the current 7.5% 10-year risk figure will remain the threshold to start treatment. Khan anticipates the guidelines committee will have to re-evaluate that threshold.

“The 7.5% risk threshold was advised in the 2013 guidelines, based on what we knew then about the balance between benefit and harm and with the knowledge that the risk equations overestimated risk,” she said. “We now have a lot more data on the safety of statin therapy. We see this frequently in preventive care. Treatments often becomes more widespread in time and use expands into lower-risk patients.”

She also pointed out that the current primary prevention guidelines encourage consideration of other factors, not just predictive risk scores, when thinking about starting statins, including very high LDL cholesterol, family history, and apo B and Lp(a) levels.

“The recommendation on who would qualify for statin therapy is not based on one number,” she said. “It is based on many considerations, including both qualitative and quantitative factors, and discussions between the patient and the doctor. It is not a straightforward yes or no based on a 7.5% risk threshold.”

The equations, she said, should only be viewed as the first step in the process, and she said she agrees with Nissen that when applying the equations, doctors need to use additional data from each individual patient to make a judgment. “Equations do not decide who gets treated. Clinical practice guidelines do that.” 

Khan also agreed with Nissen that more effort is needed to identify longer term cardiovascular risk in younger people, and so the PREVENT equations include 30-year risk estimates.

“I totally agree that we need to start earlier in having these prevention conversations. The PREVENT model starts at age 30 which is 10 years earlier than the pooled cohort equations and they add a 30-year time horizon as well as the 10-year period for these discussions on predicted risk estimates,” she said. “We need to make sure we are not missing risk in young adults just because we are waiting for them to get into some arbitrary age category.”

Khan says she believes that, used correctly, the new equations will not limit access to statins or other cardiovascular treatments. “Because they are a more accurate reflection of risk in the contemporary population, the new PREVENT equations should identify the correct patients to be treated, within the confines of knowing that no risk prediction equation is perfect,” she said. “And if everything else is considered as well, not just the numbers in the risk equations, it shouldn’t result in fewer patients being treated.”

Anderson reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the US Deprescribing Research Network. Nissen is leading a development program for a nonprescription low dose of rosuvastatin. He is also involved in trials of a new cholesterol lowering drug, obicetrapib, and on trials on drugs that lower Lp(a). Khan reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

An individual’s estimated risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years is widely used to guide preventative medication prescriptions with statins or antihypertensive drugs in those who have not yet had such an event.

To estimate that risk, doctors use equations that include different risk factors, such as age, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. The current equations, known as the pooled cohort equations, are considered to be outdated as they were developed in 2013 based on population data from the 1960s and 70s. A new set of risk equations — known as the PREVENT equations — were developed by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 2023, and are based on a more contemporary population. It is anticipated that AHA will recommend these new risk equations be used in clinical practice in the next primary prevention guidelines.

But could these new risk equations do more harm than good?

Two recent studies found that applying the PREVENT risk equations to the US population results in a much lower overall level of risk compared with the pooled cohort equations. And, if the current threshold for starting statin treatment — which is an estimated 7.5% risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years — is kept the same, this would result in many fewer patients being eligible for statin treatment.

As cardiovascular risk is also used to guide antihypertensive treatment, the new risk equations would also result in fewer people with borderline high blood pressure being eligible for those medications.

This has raised concerns in the medical community, where there is a widespread view that many more people would benefit from primary prevention treatment, and that anything that may cause fewer people to receive these medications would be harmful. 

“I believe the new equations more accurately predict the risk of the current US population, but we need to be aware of what effect that may have on use of statins,” said Tim Anderson, MD, who studies healthcare delivery at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and is lead author of one of the studies evaluating the equations.

Anderson told this news organization that the pooled cohort equations have long been viewed as problematic. 

“Because these equations were based on cohorts from the 1960s and 70s, it is believed they overestimate the current population’s risk of MI and stroke as the burden of disease has shifted in the intervening 50-60 years,” he said.

 

Current Equations Overestimate Risk

The new equations are based on more recent, representative, and diverse cohorts that capture a wider spectrum of the population in terms of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. They also include factors that are now known to be relevant to cardiovascular risk, such as chronic kidney disease.

Anderson compared how the two sets of equations estimated risk of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years in the US population using the NHANES survey — a large nationally representative survey conducted between 2017 and 2020. 

He found that the pooled cohort equations estimated the population average 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease to be about 8%, but the PREVENT equations estimated it at just over 4%.

“The new equations estimate that the middle-aged US population have almost half the level of risk of MI and stroke over next 10 years compared with the equations used currently. So, we will substantially change risk estimates if the new equations are introduced into practice,” Anderson said. 

The study found that, if the PREVENT equations are adopted in the next set of primary prevention guidelines and the current threshold of a 7.5% risk of having an MI or stroke in the next 10 years is maintained as the starting point for statin treatment, then 17.3 million adults who were previously recommended primary prevention statin therapy would no longer be eligible.

A second, similar study, conducted by a different team of US researchers, estimated that using PREVENT would decrease the number of US adults receiving or recommended for statin therapy by 14.3 million and antihypertensive therapy by 2.62 million.

The researchers, led by James A. Diao, MD, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, also suggested that over 10 years, reductions in treatment eligibility could result in an estimated 107,000 additional MI or stroke events.

Anderson points out that using the new equations would not affect the highest-risk patients. “They are still going to be high risk whichever equations are used. If you smoke a pack of cigarettes a day, have very high blood pressure or cholesterol and are older, then you are high risk. That part hasn’t changed. These people will qualify for statin treatment many times over with both sets of guidelines,” he said. 

Rather it will be the large population at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease that will be affected, with far fewer of these individuals likely to get statins.

“If you are on the fence about whether to take a statin or not and you’re currently just on the threshold where they might be recommended then these new equations could mean that you’ll be less likely to be offered them,” he said. “Using the new equations may result in a delay of a couple of years to have that conversation.”

 

A Red Flag

Steve Nissen, MD, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, is not a fan of cardiovascular risk equations in general. He points out that less than half of those currently eligible for statins are actually treated. And he believes the studies suggesting fewer people will be eligible with the new risk equations raise a red flag on whether they should be used.

“Anything that may result in fewer people being treated is a huge problem,” he told this news organization. “We have abundant evidence that we should be treating more people, not fewer people. Every study we have done has shown benefit with statins.”

The risk calculators were initially developed to limit use of statins and other medications to high-risk patients, he said, but now that we know more about safety of these drugs, it’s clear that the risks are almost nonexistent. 

“We really need something else to guide the prescription of statins,” said Nissen.

Nissen suggests the risk calculators and guidelines have resulted in undertreatment of the population because they lack nuance and put too much emphasis on age. We should be more interested in reducing the lifetime risk of cardiovascular events, he said. “Calculators don’t do a good job of that. Their time horizons are too short. Young people with a family history of cardiovascular disease may have a low 10-year risk on a risk calculator but their lifetime risk is elevated, and as such, they should be considered for statin treatment. We need to find a more nuanced approach to understanding the lifetime risk of individuals,” he said. 

Nissen said risk calculators can be useful in high-risk patients to help demonstrate their need for treatment. “I can show them the calculator and that they have a 20% chance of an event — that can help convince them to take a statin.” 

But at the lower end of the risk scale, “all it does is keep patients who should be getting treatment from having that treatment.”

Nissen said changing the risk calculator won’t affect how he treats patients. “I use judgment to decide who to treat based on scientific literature and the patient in front of me. We will engage in a discussion and make a shared decision on what is the best course of action. Calculators will never be a substitute for medical judgment,” he said.

 

Equations Don’t Decide

Sadiya Khan, MD, a cardiologist at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, and lead author of the PREVENT equations, told this news organization that it is important to put this discussion into context.

“The two recent papers do a good job of describing differences in predictive risk between the two sets of equations but that’s where they stop,” she said. “The translation from that to the decision on who should or should not be on statins or other medications is a step too far.”

Clinical guidelines will need to be updated to take the PREVENT equations into account, as Khan argued in a JAMA editorial. So it is not clear whether the current 7.5% 10-year risk figure will remain the threshold to start treatment. Khan anticipates the guidelines committee will have to re-evaluate that threshold.

“The 7.5% risk threshold was advised in the 2013 guidelines, based on what we knew then about the balance between benefit and harm and with the knowledge that the risk equations overestimated risk,” she said. “We now have a lot more data on the safety of statin therapy. We see this frequently in preventive care. Treatments often becomes more widespread in time and use expands into lower-risk patients.”

She also pointed out that the current primary prevention guidelines encourage consideration of other factors, not just predictive risk scores, when thinking about starting statins, including very high LDL cholesterol, family history, and apo B and Lp(a) levels.

“The recommendation on who would qualify for statin therapy is not based on one number,” she said. “It is based on many considerations, including both qualitative and quantitative factors, and discussions between the patient and the doctor. It is not a straightforward yes or no based on a 7.5% risk threshold.”

The equations, she said, should only be viewed as the first step in the process, and she said she agrees with Nissen that when applying the equations, doctors need to use additional data from each individual patient to make a judgment. “Equations do not decide who gets treated. Clinical practice guidelines do that.” 

Khan also agreed with Nissen that more effort is needed to identify longer term cardiovascular risk in younger people, and so the PREVENT equations include 30-year risk estimates.

“I totally agree that we need to start earlier in having these prevention conversations. The PREVENT model starts at age 30 which is 10 years earlier than the pooled cohort equations and they add a 30-year time horizon as well as the 10-year period for these discussions on predicted risk estimates,” she said. “We need to make sure we are not missing risk in young adults just because we are waiting for them to get into some arbitrary age category.”

Khan says she believes that, used correctly, the new equations will not limit access to statins or other cardiovascular treatments. “Because they are a more accurate reflection of risk in the contemporary population, the new PREVENT equations should identify the correct patients to be treated, within the confines of knowing that no risk prediction equation is perfect,” she said. “And if everything else is considered as well, not just the numbers in the risk equations, it shouldn’t result in fewer patients being treated.”

Anderson reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the US Deprescribing Research Network. Nissen is leading a development program for a nonprescription low dose of rosuvastatin. He is also involved in trials of a new cholesterol lowering drug, obicetrapib, and on trials on drugs that lower Lp(a). Khan reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

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

Researchers are gaining new insight into the relationship between the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), a common herpes virus found in the gut, and the immune response associated with CD83 antibody in some individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Using tissue samples from deceased donors with AD, the study showed CD83-positive (CD83+) microglia in the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) are significantly associated with elevated immunoglobulin gamma 4 (IgG4) and HCMV in the transverse colon (TC), increased anti-HCMV IgG4 in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and both HCMV and IgG4 in the SFG and vagus nerve.

“Our results indicate a complex, cross-tissue interaction between HCMV and the host adaptive immune response associated with CD83+ microglia in persons with AD,” noted the investigators, including Benjamin P. Readhead, MBBS, research associate professor, ASU-Banner Neurodegenerative Disease Research Center, Arizona State University, Tempe.

The results suggest antiviral therapy in patients with biomarker evidence of HCMV, IgG4, or CD83+ microglia might ward off dementia.

“We’re preparing to conduct a clinical trial to evaluate whether careful use of existing antivirals might be clinically helpful in preventing or slowing progression of CD83+ associated Alzheimer’s disease,” Readhead said in an interview.

The study was published on December 19, 2024, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

Vagus Nerve a Potential Pathway?

CMV is a common virus. In the United States, nearly one in three children are already infected with CMV by age 5 years. Over half the adults have been infected with CMV by age 40 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

It is typically passed through bodily fluids and spread only when the virus is active. It’s not considered a sexually transmitted disease.

Compared with other IgG subclasses, IgG4 is believed to be a less inflammatory, and therefore less damaging, immune response. But this response may be less effective at clearing infections and allow invasion of HCMV into the brain.

Experts speculate HCMV may travel via the vagus nerve from the colon to the brain where it triggers the onset of AD. 

The researchers previously found a CD83+ microglial subtype in the SFG of 47% of brain donors with AD vs 25% of unaffected control individuals. They reported this subtype is associated with increased IgG4 in the TC.

The current analysis extends investigations of the potential etiology and clinicopathologic relevance of CD83+ microglia in the context of AD.

Researchers conducted experiments using donated tissue samples from deceased patients with AD and control individuals. Sources for these samples included the Banner cohort, for whom classifications for the presence of CD83+ microglia were available, as were tissue samples from the SFG, TC, and vagus nerve, and the Religious Orders Study and Rush Memory and Aging Project (ROSMAP), in which participants without known dementia are evaluated annually.

From the Banner cohort, researchers completed immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies on 34 SFG samples (21 AD and 13 control individuals) and included 25 TC samples (13 AD and 12 control individuals) and 8 vagal nerve samples (6 AD and 2 control individuals) in the study. From the ROSMAP cohort, they completed IHC studies on 27 prefrontal cortex samples from individuals with AD.

They carefully selected these samples to ensure matching for critical factors such as postmortem interval, age, and sex, as well as other relevant covariates, said the authors.

The study verified that CD83+ microglia are associated with IgG4 and HCMV in the TC and showed a significant association between CD83+ microglia and IgG4 immunoreactivity in the TC.

Investigators confirmed HCMV positivity in all nine CD83+ TC samples evaluated and in one CD83– TC sample, indicating a strong positive association between HCMV within the TC and CD83+ microglia within the SFG.

HCMV IgG seroprevalence is common, varies by age and comorbidity, and is present in 79% of 85-year-olds, the investigators noted. “Despite this, we note that HCMV presence in the TC was not ubiquitous and was significantly associated with CD83+ microglia and HCMV in the SFG,” they wrote.

This observation, they added, “may help reconcile how a common pathogen might contribute to a disease that most individuals do not develop.”

The experiments also uncovered increased anti-HCMV IgG4 in the CSF and evidence of HCMV and IgG4 in the vagus nerve.

“Overall, the histochemical staining patterns observed in TC, SFG, and vagus nerve of CD83+ subjects are consistent with active HCMV infection,” the investigators wrote. “Taken together, these results indicate a multiorgan presence of IgG4 and HCMV in subjects with CD83+ microglia within the SFG,” they added.

 

Accelerated AD Pathology

The team showed HCMV infection accelerates production of two pathologic features of AD — amyloid beta (Abeta) and tau — and causes neuronal death. “We observed high, positive correlations between the abundance of HCMV, and both Abeta42 and pTau-212,” they wrote.

As HCMV histochemistry is consistent with an active HCMV infection, the findings “may indicate an opportunity for the administration of antiviral therapy in subjects with AD and biomarker evidence of HCMV, IgG4, or CD83+ microglia,” they added.

In addition to planning a clinical trial of existing antivirals, the research team is developing a blood test that can help identify patients with an active HCMV infection who might benefit from such an intervention, said Readhead.

But he emphasized that the research is still in its infancy. “Our study is best understood as a series of interesting scientific findings that warrant further exploration, replication, and validation in additional study populations.”

Although it’s too early for the study to impact practice, “we’re motivated to understand whether these findings have implications for clinical care,” he added.

 

Tipping the Balance

A number of experts have weighed in on the research via the Science Media Center, an independent forum featuring the voices and views on science news from experts in the field.

Andrew Doig, PhD, professor, Division of Neuroscience, University of Manchester in England, said the new work supports the hypothesis that HCMV might be a trigger that tips the balance from a healthy brain to one with dementia. “If so, antiviral drugs against HCMV might be beneficial in reducing the risk of AD.”

Doig noted newly approved drugs for AD are expensive, provide only a small benefit, and have significant risks, such as causing brain hemorrhages. “Antiviral drugs are an attractive alternative that are well worth exploring.”

Richard Oakley, PhD, associate director of research and innovation, Alzheimer’s Society, cautioned the study only established a connection and didn’t directly show the virus leads to AD. “Also, the virus is not found in the brain of everyone with Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia.”

The significance of the new findings is “far from clear,” commented William McEwan, PhD, group leader at the UK Dementia Research Institute at Cambridge, England. “The study does not address how common this infection is in people without Alzheimer’s and therefore cannot by itself suggest that HCMV infection, or the associated immune response, is a driver of disease.”

The experts agreed follow-up research is needed to confirm these new findings and understand what they mean.

The study received support from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Global Lyme Alliance, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Arizona Alzheimer’s Consortium, The Benter Foundation, and NOMIS Stiftung. Readhead is a coinventor on a patent application for an IgG4-based peripheral biomarker for the detection of CD83+ microglia. Doig is a founder, director, and consultant for PharmaKure, which works on AD drugs and diagnostics, although not on viruses. He has cowritten a review on Viral Involvement in Alzheimer’s Disease. McEwan reported receiving research funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is a founder and consultant to Trimtech Therapeutics.

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

Researchers are gaining new insight into the relationship between the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), a common herpes virus found in the gut, and the immune response associated with CD83 antibody in some individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Using tissue samples from deceased donors with AD, the study showed CD83-positive (CD83+) microglia in the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) are significantly associated with elevated immunoglobulin gamma 4 (IgG4) and HCMV in the transverse colon (TC), increased anti-HCMV IgG4 in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and both HCMV and IgG4 in the SFG and vagus nerve.

“Our results indicate a complex, cross-tissue interaction between HCMV and the host adaptive immune response associated with CD83+ microglia in persons with AD,” noted the investigators, including Benjamin P. Readhead, MBBS, research associate professor, ASU-Banner Neurodegenerative Disease Research Center, Arizona State University, Tempe.

The results suggest antiviral therapy in patients with biomarker evidence of HCMV, IgG4, or CD83+ microglia might ward off dementia.

“We’re preparing to conduct a clinical trial to evaluate whether careful use of existing antivirals might be clinically helpful in preventing or slowing progression of CD83+ associated Alzheimer’s disease,” Readhead said in an interview.

The study was published on December 19, 2024, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

Vagus Nerve a Potential Pathway?

CMV is a common virus. In the United States, nearly one in three children are already infected with CMV by age 5 years. Over half the adults have been infected with CMV by age 40 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

It is typically passed through bodily fluids and spread only when the virus is active. It’s not considered a sexually transmitted disease.

Compared with other IgG subclasses, IgG4 is believed to be a less inflammatory, and therefore less damaging, immune response. But this response may be less effective at clearing infections and allow invasion of HCMV into the brain.

Experts speculate HCMV may travel via the vagus nerve from the colon to the brain where it triggers the onset of AD. 

The researchers previously found a CD83+ microglial subtype in the SFG of 47% of brain donors with AD vs 25% of unaffected control individuals. They reported this subtype is associated with increased IgG4 in the TC.

The current analysis extends investigations of the potential etiology and clinicopathologic relevance of CD83+ microglia in the context of AD.

Researchers conducted experiments using donated tissue samples from deceased patients with AD and control individuals. Sources for these samples included the Banner cohort, for whom classifications for the presence of CD83+ microglia were available, as were tissue samples from the SFG, TC, and vagus nerve, and the Religious Orders Study and Rush Memory and Aging Project (ROSMAP), in which participants without known dementia are evaluated annually.

From the Banner cohort, researchers completed immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies on 34 SFG samples (21 AD and 13 control individuals) and included 25 TC samples (13 AD and 12 control individuals) and 8 vagal nerve samples (6 AD and 2 control individuals) in the study. From the ROSMAP cohort, they completed IHC studies on 27 prefrontal cortex samples from individuals with AD.

They carefully selected these samples to ensure matching for critical factors such as postmortem interval, age, and sex, as well as other relevant covariates, said the authors.

The study verified that CD83+ microglia are associated with IgG4 and HCMV in the TC and showed a significant association between CD83+ microglia and IgG4 immunoreactivity in the TC.

Investigators confirmed HCMV positivity in all nine CD83+ TC samples evaluated and in one CD83– TC sample, indicating a strong positive association between HCMV within the TC and CD83+ microglia within the SFG.

HCMV IgG seroprevalence is common, varies by age and comorbidity, and is present in 79% of 85-year-olds, the investigators noted. “Despite this, we note that HCMV presence in the TC was not ubiquitous and was significantly associated with CD83+ microglia and HCMV in the SFG,” they wrote.

This observation, they added, “may help reconcile how a common pathogen might contribute to a disease that most individuals do not develop.”

The experiments also uncovered increased anti-HCMV IgG4 in the CSF and evidence of HCMV and IgG4 in the vagus nerve.

“Overall, the histochemical staining patterns observed in TC, SFG, and vagus nerve of CD83+ subjects are consistent with active HCMV infection,” the investigators wrote. “Taken together, these results indicate a multiorgan presence of IgG4 and HCMV in subjects with CD83+ microglia within the SFG,” they added.

 

Accelerated AD Pathology

The team showed HCMV infection accelerates production of two pathologic features of AD — amyloid beta (Abeta) and tau — and causes neuronal death. “We observed high, positive correlations between the abundance of HCMV, and both Abeta42 and pTau-212,” they wrote.

As HCMV histochemistry is consistent with an active HCMV infection, the findings “may indicate an opportunity for the administration of antiviral therapy in subjects with AD and biomarker evidence of HCMV, IgG4, or CD83+ microglia,” they added.

In addition to planning a clinical trial of existing antivirals, the research team is developing a blood test that can help identify patients with an active HCMV infection who might benefit from such an intervention, said Readhead.

But he emphasized that the research is still in its infancy. “Our study is best understood as a series of interesting scientific findings that warrant further exploration, replication, and validation in additional study populations.”

Although it’s too early for the study to impact practice, “we’re motivated to understand whether these findings have implications for clinical care,” he added.

 

Tipping the Balance

A number of experts have weighed in on the research via the Science Media Center, an independent forum featuring the voices and views on science news from experts in the field.

Andrew Doig, PhD, professor, Division of Neuroscience, University of Manchester in England, said the new work supports the hypothesis that HCMV might be a trigger that tips the balance from a healthy brain to one with dementia. “If so, antiviral drugs against HCMV might be beneficial in reducing the risk of AD.”

Doig noted newly approved drugs for AD are expensive, provide only a small benefit, and have significant risks, such as causing brain hemorrhages. “Antiviral drugs are an attractive alternative that are well worth exploring.”

Richard Oakley, PhD, associate director of research and innovation, Alzheimer’s Society, cautioned the study only established a connection and didn’t directly show the virus leads to AD. “Also, the virus is not found in the brain of everyone with Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia.”

The significance of the new findings is “far from clear,” commented William McEwan, PhD, group leader at the UK Dementia Research Institute at Cambridge, England. “The study does not address how common this infection is in people without Alzheimer’s and therefore cannot by itself suggest that HCMV infection, or the associated immune response, is a driver of disease.”

The experts agreed follow-up research is needed to confirm these new findings and understand what they mean.

The study received support from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Global Lyme Alliance, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Arizona Alzheimer’s Consortium, The Benter Foundation, and NOMIS Stiftung. Readhead is a coinventor on a patent application for an IgG4-based peripheral biomarker for the detection of CD83+ microglia. Doig is a founder, director, and consultant for PharmaKure, which works on AD drugs and diagnostics, although not on viruses. He has cowritten a review on Viral Involvement in Alzheimer’s Disease. McEwan reported receiving research funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is a founder and consultant to Trimtech Therapeutics.

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

Researchers are gaining new insight into the relationship between the human cytomegalovirus (HCMV), a common herpes virus found in the gut, and the immune response associated with CD83 antibody in some individuals with Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Using tissue samples from deceased donors with AD, the study showed CD83-positive (CD83+) microglia in the superior frontal gyrus (SFG) are significantly associated with elevated immunoglobulin gamma 4 (IgG4) and HCMV in the transverse colon (TC), increased anti-HCMV IgG4 in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and both HCMV and IgG4 in the SFG and vagus nerve.

“Our results indicate a complex, cross-tissue interaction between HCMV and the host adaptive immune response associated with CD83+ microglia in persons with AD,” noted the investigators, including Benjamin P. Readhead, MBBS, research associate professor, ASU-Banner Neurodegenerative Disease Research Center, Arizona State University, Tempe.

The results suggest antiviral therapy in patients with biomarker evidence of HCMV, IgG4, or CD83+ microglia might ward off dementia.

“We’re preparing to conduct a clinical trial to evaluate whether careful use of existing antivirals might be clinically helpful in preventing or slowing progression of CD83+ associated Alzheimer’s disease,” Readhead said in an interview.

The study was published on December 19, 2024, in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

 

Vagus Nerve a Potential Pathway?

CMV is a common virus. In the United States, nearly one in three children are already infected with CMV by age 5 years. Over half the adults have been infected with CMV by age 40 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

It is typically passed through bodily fluids and spread only when the virus is active. It’s not considered a sexually transmitted disease.

Compared with other IgG subclasses, IgG4 is believed to be a less inflammatory, and therefore less damaging, immune response. But this response may be less effective at clearing infections and allow invasion of HCMV into the brain.

Experts speculate HCMV may travel via the vagus nerve from the colon to the brain where it triggers the onset of AD. 

The researchers previously found a CD83+ microglial subtype in the SFG of 47% of brain donors with AD vs 25% of unaffected control individuals. They reported this subtype is associated with increased IgG4 in the TC.

The current analysis extends investigations of the potential etiology and clinicopathologic relevance of CD83+ microglia in the context of AD.

Researchers conducted experiments using donated tissue samples from deceased patients with AD and control individuals. Sources for these samples included the Banner cohort, for whom classifications for the presence of CD83+ microglia were available, as were tissue samples from the SFG, TC, and vagus nerve, and the Religious Orders Study and Rush Memory and Aging Project (ROSMAP), in which participants without known dementia are evaluated annually.

From the Banner cohort, researchers completed immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies on 34 SFG samples (21 AD and 13 control individuals) and included 25 TC samples (13 AD and 12 control individuals) and 8 vagal nerve samples (6 AD and 2 control individuals) in the study. From the ROSMAP cohort, they completed IHC studies on 27 prefrontal cortex samples from individuals with AD.

They carefully selected these samples to ensure matching for critical factors such as postmortem interval, age, and sex, as well as other relevant covariates, said the authors.

The study verified that CD83+ microglia are associated with IgG4 and HCMV in the TC and showed a significant association between CD83+ microglia and IgG4 immunoreactivity in the TC.

Investigators confirmed HCMV positivity in all nine CD83+ TC samples evaluated and in one CD83– TC sample, indicating a strong positive association between HCMV within the TC and CD83+ microglia within the SFG.

HCMV IgG seroprevalence is common, varies by age and comorbidity, and is present in 79% of 85-year-olds, the investigators noted. “Despite this, we note that HCMV presence in the TC was not ubiquitous and was significantly associated with CD83+ microglia and HCMV in the SFG,” they wrote.

This observation, they added, “may help reconcile how a common pathogen might contribute to a disease that most individuals do not develop.”

The experiments also uncovered increased anti-HCMV IgG4 in the CSF and evidence of HCMV and IgG4 in the vagus nerve.

“Overall, the histochemical staining patterns observed in TC, SFG, and vagus nerve of CD83+ subjects are consistent with active HCMV infection,” the investigators wrote. “Taken together, these results indicate a multiorgan presence of IgG4 and HCMV in subjects with CD83+ microglia within the SFG,” they added.

 

Accelerated AD Pathology

The team showed HCMV infection accelerates production of two pathologic features of AD — amyloid beta (Abeta) and tau — and causes neuronal death. “We observed high, positive correlations between the abundance of HCMV, and both Abeta42 and pTau-212,” they wrote.

As HCMV histochemistry is consistent with an active HCMV infection, the findings “may indicate an opportunity for the administration of antiviral therapy in subjects with AD and biomarker evidence of HCMV, IgG4, or CD83+ microglia,” they added.

In addition to planning a clinical trial of existing antivirals, the research team is developing a blood test that can help identify patients with an active HCMV infection who might benefit from such an intervention, said Readhead.

But he emphasized that the research is still in its infancy. “Our study is best understood as a series of interesting scientific findings that warrant further exploration, replication, and validation in additional study populations.”

Although it’s too early for the study to impact practice, “we’re motivated to understand whether these findings have implications for clinical care,” he added.

 

Tipping the Balance

A number of experts have weighed in on the research via the Science Media Center, an independent forum featuring the voices and views on science news from experts in the field.

Andrew Doig, PhD, professor, Division of Neuroscience, University of Manchester in England, said the new work supports the hypothesis that HCMV might be a trigger that tips the balance from a healthy brain to one with dementia. “If so, antiviral drugs against HCMV might be beneficial in reducing the risk of AD.”

Doig noted newly approved drugs for AD are expensive, provide only a small benefit, and have significant risks, such as causing brain hemorrhages. “Antiviral drugs are an attractive alternative that are well worth exploring.”

Richard Oakley, PhD, associate director of research and innovation, Alzheimer’s Society, cautioned the study only established a connection and didn’t directly show the virus leads to AD. “Also, the virus is not found in the brain of everyone with Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia.”

The significance of the new findings is “far from clear,” commented William McEwan, PhD, group leader at the UK Dementia Research Institute at Cambridge, England. “The study does not address how common this infection is in people without Alzheimer’s and therefore cannot by itself suggest that HCMV infection, or the associated immune response, is a driver of disease.”

The experts agreed follow-up research is needed to confirm these new findings and understand what they mean.

The study received support from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Global Lyme Alliance, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Arizona Alzheimer’s Consortium, The Benter Foundation, and NOMIS Stiftung. Readhead is a coinventor on a patent application for an IgG4-based peripheral biomarker for the detection of CD83+ microglia. Doig is a founder, director, and consultant for PharmaKure, which works on AD drugs and diagnostics, although not on viruses. He has cowritten a review on Viral Involvement in Alzheimer’s Disease. McEwan reported receiving research funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals and is a founder and consultant to Trimtech Therapeutics.

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

The scientific report that offers evidence-based guidance for the next iteration of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been submitted to federal agencies, and the document — which already has generated controversy because of its emphasis on plant-based foods — is now open for public comment.

The advisory committee that developed the report examined the scientific evidence on specific nutrition and public health topics using data analysis, systematic reviews, and food modeling. 

“We saw something over and over again — when you look at a population level, diets for which the predominant composition was plants performed better when it came to health outcomes,” advisory committee member Cheryl Anderson, PhD, MPH, who is a professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. “There’s a pretty consistent body of literature showing benefits of fruits, vegetables, and legumes and reductions in salt, added sugars, and saturated fats.”

Clinicians should read and comment on the report, said Anderson.

“Commenting sends the right signal that they are interested in what’s needed for nutrition education,” she said. “It will also activate a conversation with the people who are writing the guidelines.”

Instructions for submitting comments online through February 10, 2025, and for participating in the oral comment meeting on January 16, 2025, are posted online.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health & Human Services will use the report as a key resource, alongside the public comments and agency input, as they jointly develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030.

 

Meat Given a Back Seat

Overall, the advisory committee defined a “healthy dietary pattern” as one that is “higher in vegetables, fruits, legumes (ie, beans, peas, lentils), nuts, whole grains, fish/seafood, and vegetable oils higher in unsaturated fat — and lower in red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, refined grains, and saturated fat.”

The report emphasizes “plain drinking water” as the primary beverage for people to consume and states that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption should be limited.

It recommends limiting total saturated fat intake to less than 10% of daily calories and replacing it with unsaturated fat, particularly polyunsaturated fats.

Notably, the report advocates increasing the consumption of beans, peas, and lentils and decreasing starchy vegetables (such as potatoes), as well as reducing total protein foods by reducing meat, poultry, and eggs. This recommendation and the report’s broad emphasis on plant-based foods have drawn criticism, mainly from the food industry.

Also likely to be controversial are the recommendations to move beans, peas, and lentils from the vegetable group to the protein group and the proposed reorganization of the order of the protein foods group to list beans, peas, and lentils first, followed by nuts, seeds, and soy products; then seafood; and finally meats, poultry, and eggs.

Gastroenterologists and dietitians should support the emphasis on plant-based protein sources, water for hydration, and the importance of personalized nutrition plans, including culturally diverse and ethnic food options, said Stephanie Gold, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York City.

“The newly proposed 2025 Dietary Guidelines are approaching a Mediterranean-style diet by focusing on plant-based protein sources while limiting red meat and saturated fats, as well as added sugar. By including these legumes in the protein category (not only as a starchy vegetable), the proposed guideline recognizes both the health benefits and sustainability of plant-based proteins,” Gold said in an interview.

Although the report recognizes “the potential negative impact and the varying definitions of ultra-processed foods, it does not provide concrete recommendations regarding intake, and perhaps, this could be an area of focus going forward,” she added.

Anderson noted that the science around ultra-processed food is “underdeveloped.” However, the definition of a healthy diet “has never suggested that we have foods that are extremely processed in it.”

“Right now, there’s a lot of interest in ultra-processed foods and what they mean for health, but the science is going to need to catch up with that interest,” Anderson said.

 

What’s Next

The release of the scientific report is part of a five-step process to develop the new guidelines that included input from the public during the report’s development. According to the USDA, the advisory committee received approximately 9900 public comments, more than any other previous committee.

Once the new dietary guidelines are complete, Anderson said, “clinicians have an opportunity to really lean into a science-based framework to talk about overall health concerns and reducing the burden of diet-related illnesses with their patients.”

Meanwhile, they can voice their approval or concerns about the scientific report.

Anderson and Gold reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The scientific report that offers evidence-based guidance for the next iteration of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been submitted to federal agencies, and the document — which already has generated controversy because of its emphasis on plant-based foods — is now open for public comment.

The advisory committee that developed the report examined the scientific evidence on specific nutrition and public health topics using data analysis, systematic reviews, and food modeling. 

“We saw something over and over again — when you look at a population level, diets for which the predominant composition was plants performed better when it came to health outcomes,” advisory committee member Cheryl Anderson, PhD, MPH, who is a professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. “There’s a pretty consistent body of literature showing benefits of fruits, vegetables, and legumes and reductions in salt, added sugars, and saturated fats.”

Clinicians should read and comment on the report, said Anderson.

“Commenting sends the right signal that they are interested in what’s needed for nutrition education,” she said. “It will also activate a conversation with the people who are writing the guidelines.”

Instructions for submitting comments online through February 10, 2025, and for participating in the oral comment meeting on January 16, 2025, are posted online.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health & Human Services will use the report as a key resource, alongside the public comments and agency input, as they jointly develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030.

 

Meat Given a Back Seat

Overall, the advisory committee defined a “healthy dietary pattern” as one that is “higher in vegetables, fruits, legumes (ie, beans, peas, lentils), nuts, whole grains, fish/seafood, and vegetable oils higher in unsaturated fat — and lower in red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, refined grains, and saturated fat.”

The report emphasizes “plain drinking water” as the primary beverage for people to consume and states that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption should be limited.

It recommends limiting total saturated fat intake to less than 10% of daily calories and replacing it with unsaturated fat, particularly polyunsaturated fats.

Notably, the report advocates increasing the consumption of beans, peas, and lentils and decreasing starchy vegetables (such as potatoes), as well as reducing total protein foods by reducing meat, poultry, and eggs. This recommendation and the report’s broad emphasis on plant-based foods have drawn criticism, mainly from the food industry.

Also likely to be controversial are the recommendations to move beans, peas, and lentils from the vegetable group to the protein group and the proposed reorganization of the order of the protein foods group to list beans, peas, and lentils first, followed by nuts, seeds, and soy products; then seafood; and finally meats, poultry, and eggs.

Gastroenterologists and dietitians should support the emphasis on plant-based protein sources, water for hydration, and the importance of personalized nutrition plans, including culturally diverse and ethnic food options, said Stephanie Gold, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York City.

“The newly proposed 2025 Dietary Guidelines are approaching a Mediterranean-style diet by focusing on plant-based protein sources while limiting red meat and saturated fats, as well as added sugar. By including these legumes in the protein category (not only as a starchy vegetable), the proposed guideline recognizes both the health benefits and sustainability of plant-based proteins,” Gold said in an interview.

Although the report recognizes “the potential negative impact and the varying definitions of ultra-processed foods, it does not provide concrete recommendations regarding intake, and perhaps, this could be an area of focus going forward,” she added.

Anderson noted that the science around ultra-processed food is “underdeveloped.” However, the definition of a healthy diet “has never suggested that we have foods that are extremely processed in it.”

“Right now, there’s a lot of interest in ultra-processed foods and what they mean for health, but the science is going to need to catch up with that interest,” Anderson said.

 

What’s Next

The release of the scientific report is part of a five-step process to develop the new guidelines that included input from the public during the report’s development. According to the USDA, the advisory committee received approximately 9900 public comments, more than any other previous committee.

Once the new dietary guidelines are complete, Anderson said, “clinicians have an opportunity to really lean into a science-based framework to talk about overall health concerns and reducing the burden of diet-related illnesses with their patients.”

Meanwhile, they can voice their approval or concerns about the scientific report.

Anderson and Gold reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The scientific report that offers evidence-based guidance for the next iteration of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been submitted to federal agencies, and the document — which already has generated controversy because of its emphasis on plant-based foods — is now open for public comment.

The advisory committee that developed the report examined the scientific evidence on specific nutrition and public health topics using data analysis, systematic reviews, and food modeling. 

“We saw something over and over again — when you look at a population level, diets for which the predominant composition was plants performed better when it came to health outcomes,” advisory committee member Cheryl Anderson, PhD, MPH, who is a professor and dean of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview. “There’s a pretty consistent body of literature showing benefits of fruits, vegetables, and legumes and reductions in salt, added sugars, and saturated fats.”

Clinicians should read and comment on the report, said Anderson.

“Commenting sends the right signal that they are interested in what’s needed for nutrition education,” she said. “It will also activate a conversation with the people who are writing the guidelines.”

Instructions for submitting comments online through February 10, 2025, and for participating in the oral comment meeting on January 16, 2025, are posted online.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health & Human Services will use the report as a key resource, alongside the public comments and agency input, as they jointly develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030.

 

Meat Given a Back Seat

Overall, the advisory committee defined a “healthy dietary pattern” as one that is “higher in vegetables, fruits, legumes (ie, beans, peas, lentils), nuts, whole grains, fish/seafood, and vegetable oils higher in unsaturated fat — and lower in red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, refined grains, and saturated fat.”

The report emphasizes “plain drinking water” as the primary beverage for people to consume and states that sugar-sweetened beverage consumption should be limited.

It recommends limiting total saturated fat intake to less than 10% of daily calories and replacing it with unsaturated fat, particularly polyunsaturated fats.

Notably, the report advocates increasing the consumption of beans, peas, and lentils and decreasing starchy vegetables (such as potatoes), as well as reducing total protein foods by reducing meat, poultry, and eggs. This recommendation and the report’s broad emphasis on plant-based foods have drawn criticism, mainly from the food industry.

Also likely to be controversial are the recommendations to move beans, peas, and lentils from the vegetable group to the protein group and the proposed reorganization of the order of the protein foods group to list beans, peas, and lentils first, followed by nuts, seeds, and soy products; then seafood; and finally meats, poultry, and eggs.

Gastroenterologists and dietitians should support the emphasis on plant-based protein sources, water for hydration, and the importance of personalized nutrition plans, including culturally diverse and ethnic food options, said Stephanie Gold, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and a gastroenterologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York City.

“The newly proposed 2025 Dietary Guidelines are approaching a Mediterranean-style diet by focusing on plant-based protein sources while limiting red meat and saturated fats, as well as added sugar. By including these legumes in the protein category (not only as a starchy vegetable), the proposed guideline recognizes both the health benefits and sustainability of plant-based proteins,” Gold said in an interview.

Although the report recognizes “the potential negative impact and the varying definitions of ultra-processed foods, it does not provide concrete recommendations regarding intake, and perhaps, this could be an area of focus going forward,” she added.

Anderson noted that the science around ultra-processed food is “underdeveloped.” However, the definition of a healthy diet “has never suggested that we have foods that are extremely processed in it.”

“Right now, there’s a lot of interest in ultra-processed foods and what they mean for health, but the science is going to need to catch up with that interest,” Anderson said.

 

What’s Next

The release of the scientific report is part of a five-step process to develop the new guidelines that included input from the public during the report’s development. According to the USDA, the advisory committee received approximately 9900 public comments, more than any other previous committee.

Once the new dietary guidelines are complete, Anderson said, “clinicians have an opportunity to really lean into a science-based framework to talk about overall health concerns and reducing the burden of diet-related illnesses with their patients.”

Meanwhile, they can voice their approval or concerns about the scientific report.

Anderson and Gold reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The administration of potassium nitrate (KNO₃) does not improve exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), despite increasing levels of nitric oxide in blood.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter crossover trial, conducted across three centers in the United States, assessed the effect of administering KNO3 on exercise capacity and quality of life.
• It included 84 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (median age, 68 years; 69% women; 76% White) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction over 50% and elevated intracardiac pressures. Participants had obesity (mean body mass index, 36.22), with a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 mmol KNO₃ first (n = 41) or 6 mmol potassium chloride (KCl) first (n = 43) three times daily for 6 weeks, with a 1-week washout period in between.
• At the end of each intervention phase, a test of incremental cardiopulmonary exercise was conducted using a supine cycle ergometer.
• Primary endpoints were the difference in peak oxygen uptake and total work performed during the exercise test; secondary endpoints included quality of life, left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, exercise systemic vasodilatory reserve, and parameters related to pulsatile arterial load.

TAKEAWAY:

• The administration of KNO₃ vs KCl increased the levels of serum metabolites of nitric oxide significantly after 6 weeks (418.44 vs 40.11 μM; P < .001).
• Peak oxygen uptake or the total work performed did not improve significantly with the administration of KNO₃, compared with KCl. Quality of life also did not improve with the administration of KNO₃.
• Mean arterial pressure at peak exercise was significantly lower after the administration of KNO₃ than after KCl (122.5 vs 127.6 mm Hg; P = .04), but the vasodilatory reserve and resting and orthostatic blood pressure did not differ.
• Adverse events were mostly minor, with gastrointestinal issues being the most common side effects reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this randomized crossover trial, chronic KNO₃ administration did not improve exercise capacity or quality of life, as compared with KCl among participants with HFpEF,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Payman Zamani, MD, MTR, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on December 18, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The potential activation of compensatory mechanisms by the chronic inorganic nitrate administration may have neutralized the short-term benefits. Various abnormalities in oxygen transport may be present simultaneously in patients with HFpEF, suggesting a combination of interventions may be required to improve exercise capacity.

DISCLOSURES:

This trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and consulting fees and having patents from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies and institutes. One author reported having full-time employment with a healthcare company.

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

TOPLINE:

The administration of potassium nitrate (KNO₃) does not improve exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), despite increasing levels of nitric oxide in blood.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter crossover trial, conducted across three centers in the United States, assessed the effect of administering KNO3 on exercise capacity and quality of life.
• It included 84 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (median age, 68 years; 69% women; 76% White) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction over 50% and elevated intracardiac pressures. Participants had obesity (mean body mass index, 36.22), with a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 mmol KNO₃ first (n = 41) or 6 mmol potassium chloride (KCl) first (n = 43) three times daily for 6 weeks, with a 1-week washout period in between.
• At the end of each intervention phase, a test of incremental cardiopulmonary exercise was conducted using a supine cycle ergometer.
• Primary endpoints were the difference in peak oxygen uptake and total work performed during the exercise test; secondary endpoints included quality of life, left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, exercise systemic vasodilatory reserve, and parameters related to pulsatile arterial load.

TAKEAWAY:

• The administration of KNO₃ vs KCl increased the levels of serum metabolites of nitric oxide significantly after 6 weeks (418.44 vs 40.11 μM; P < .001).
• Peak oxygen uptake or the total work performed did not improve significantly with the administration of KNO₃, compared with KCl. Quality of life also did not improve with the administration of KNO₃.
• Mean arterial pressure at peak exercise was significantly lower after the administration of KNO₃ than after KCl (122.5 vs 127.6 mm Hg; P = .04), but the vasodilatory reserve and resting and orthostatic blood pressure did not differ.
• Adverse events were mostly minor, with gastrointestinal issues being the most common side effects reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this randomized crossover trial, chronic KNO₃ administration did not improve exercise capacity or quality of life, as compared with KCl among participants with HFpEF,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Payman Zamani, MD, MTR, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on December 18, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The potential activation of compensatory mechanisms by the chronic inorganic nitrate administration may have neutralized the short-term benefits. Various abnormalities in oxygen transport may be present simultaneously in patients with HFpEF, suggesting a combination of interventions may be required to improve exercise capacity.

DISCLOSURES:

This trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and consulting fees and having patents from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies and institutes. One author reported having full-time employment with a healthcare company.

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

TOPLINE:

The administration of potassium nitrate (KNO₃) does not improve exercise capacity or quality of life in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), despite increasing levels of nitric oxide in blood.

METHODOLOGY:

• This multicenter crossover trial, conducted across three centers in the United States, assessed the effect of administering KNO3 on exercise capacity and quality of life.
• It included 84 patients with symptomatic HFpEF (median age, 68 years; 69% women; 76% White) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction over 50% and elevated intracardiac pressures. Participants had obesity (mean body mass index, 36.22), with a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obstructive sleep apnea.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 mmol KNO₃ first (n = 41) or 6 mmol potassium chloride (KCl) first (n = 43) three times daily for 6 weeks, with a 1-week washout period in between.
• At the end of each intervention phase, a test of incremental cardiopulmonary exercise was conducted using a supine cycle ergometer.
• Primary endpoints were the difference in peak oxygen uptake and total work performed during the exercise test; secondary endpoints included quality of life, left ventricular systolic and diastolic function, exercise systemic vasodilatory reserve, and parameters related to pulsatile arterial load.

TAKEAWAY:

• The administration of KNO₃ vs KCl increased the levels of serum metabolites of nitric oxide significantly after 6 weeks (418.44 vs 40.11 μM; P < .001).
• Peak oxygen uptake or the total work performed did not improve significantly with the administration of KNO₃, compared with KCl. Quality of life also did not improve with the administration of KNO₃.
• Mean arterial pressure at peak exercise was significantly lower after the administration of KNO₃ than after KCl (122.5 vs 127.6 mm Hg; P = .04), but the vasodilatory reserve and resting and orthostatic blood pressure did not differ.
• Adverse events were mostly minor, with gastrointestinal issues being the most common side effects reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In this randomized crossover trial, chronic KNO₃ administration did not improve exercise capacity or quality of life, as compared with KCl among participants with HFpEF,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Payman Zamani, MD, MTR, of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. It was published online on December 18, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The potential activation of compensatory mechanisms by the chronic inorganic nitrate administration may have neutralized the short-term benefits. Various abnormalities in oxygen transport may be present simultaneously in patients with HFpEF, suggesting a combination of interventions may be required to improve exercise capacity.

DISCLOSURES:

This trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, and consulting fees and having patents from various pharmaceutical and medical device companies and institutes. One author reported having full-time employment with a healthcare company.

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

Middle-aged women who did many short bursts of vigorous-intensity exercise — amounting to as little as 3 min/d — had a 45% lower risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, reported investigators.

This doesn’t mean just a walk in the park, explained Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, a researcher with the University of Sydney in Australia. He said the activity can be as short as 20-30 seconds, but it must be high intensity — “movement that gets us out of breath, gets our heart rate up” — and repeated several times daily.

Stamatakis and colleagues call this type of exercise vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity, and it involves intense movement in very short bouts that are part of daily life, like a quick stair climb or running for a bus.

In their study, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine, most exercise bursts were less than a minute, and few were over 2 minutes.

This is the third study in which the international network of researchers has shown the health benefits of vigorous physical activity. They are upending the common view that “any physical activity under 10 minutes doesn’t count for health,” said Stamatakis.

 

Bursts of Energy

The three studies looked at data for thousands of middle-aged men and women aged 40-69 years collected in the UK Biobank. Their daily activity was measured using accelerometers worn on the wrist for 7 days. This is preferable to survey data, which Stamatakis said is often unreliable.

The analysis looked at people who reported that they did not do any other exercise, taking no more than a single walk during the week. Then their cardiovascular health was tracked for almost 8 years.

Previous studies of the same data have shown benefits of vigorous physical activity for risk for cancer and for risk for death, both overall and due to cardiovascular disease or cancer.

In this study, women who did even less than 2 minutes of vigorous physical activity a day but no other exercise had a lower risk for all major cardiovascular events and for heart attack and heart failure. Women who did the median daily vigorous exercise time — 3.4 minutes — had an even lower risk. In fact, in women, there was a direct relationship between daily exercise time and risk reduction.

In men, the study showed some benefit of vigorous physical activity, but the relationship was not as clear, said Stamatakis. “The effects were much subtler and, in most cases, did not reach statistical significance.”

 

Good News for Women

Stamatakis said it is unclear why there was such a gap in the benefits between men and women. “Studies like ours are not designed to explain the difference,” he added.

“This study does not show that [vigorous physical activity] is effective in women but not men,” said Yasina Somani, PhD, an exercise physiology researcher at the University of Leeds in England, who was not involved in the work. Because the study just observed people’s behavior, rather than studying people in controlled conditions such as a lab, she said you cannot reach conclusions about the benefits for men. “You still need some further research.”

Somani pointed out that a study like this one cannot determine how vigorous physical activity protects the heart. In her research, she has studied the ways that exercise exerts effects on the heart. Exercise stresses the cardiovascular system, leading to physiological adaptation, and this may differ between men and women.

“Seeing this article motivates me to understand why women are responding even more than men. Do men need a greater volume of this exercise? If you’re carrying a 10-pound grocery bag up a flight of stairs, who is getting the greater stimulus?”

In fact, the study researchers think women’s exercise bursts might simply be harder for them. For some of the sample, the researchers had data on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max), a measure of cardiovascular fitness. During vigorous physical activity bouts, this measure showed that the effort for women averaged 83.2% of VO₂ max, whereas it was 70.5% for men.

Somani said, “For men, there needs to be more clarity and more understanding of what it is that provides that stimulus — the intensity, the mode of exercise.”

“People are very surprised that 20-30 seconds of high-intensity exercise several times a day can make a difference to their health,” said Stamatakis. “They think they need to do structured exercise,” such as at a gym, to benefit.

He said the message that even quick exercise hits are beneficial can help healthcare professionals foster preventive behavior. “Any health professional who deals with patients on a regular basis knows that physical activity is important for people’s overall well-being and prevention of chronic disease.” The difficulty is that many people cannot or simply do not exercise. “Some people cannot afford it, and some do not have the motivation to stick to a structured exercise program.”

But anyone can do vigorous physical activity, he said. “The entry level is very low. There are no special preparations, no special clothes, no money to spend, no time commitment. You are interspersing exercise across your day.”

The researchers are currently studying how to foster vigorous physical activity in everyday behavior. “We are codesigning programs with participants, engaging with middle-aged people who have never exercised, so that the program has the highest chance to be successful.” Stamatakis is looking at encouraging vigorous physical activity through wearable devices and coaching, including online options.

Somani said the study adds weight to the message that any exercise is worthwhile. “These are simple choices that you can make that don’t require engaging in more structured exercise. Whatever you can do — little things outside of a gym — can have a lot of benefit for you.”

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

Middle-aged women who did many short bursts of vigorous-intensity exercise — amounting to as little as 3 min/d — had a 45% lower risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, reported investigators.

This doesn’t mean just a walk in the park, explained Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, a researcher with the University of Sydney in Australia. He said the activity can be as short as 20-30 seconds, but it must be high intensity — “movement that gets us out of breath, gets our heart rate up” — and repeated several times daily.

Stamatakis and colleagues call this type of exercise vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity, and it involves intense movement in very short bouts that are part of daily life, like a quick stair climb or running for a bus.

In their study, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine, most exercise bursts were less than a minute, and few were over 2 minutes.

This is the third study in which the international network of researchers has shown the health benefits of vigorous physical activity. They are upending the common view that “any physical activity under 10 minutes doesn’t count for health,” said Stamatakis.

 

Bursts of Energy

The three studies looked at data for thousands of middle-aged men and women aged 40-69 years collected in the UK Biobank. Their daily activity was measured using accelerometers worn on the wrist for 7 days. This is preferable to survey data, which Stamatakis said is often unreliable.

The analysis looked at people who reported that they did not do any other exercise, taking no more than a single walk during the week. Then their cardiovascular health was tracked for almost 8 years.

Previous studies of the same data have shown benefits of vigorous physical activity for risk for cancer and for risk for death, both overall and due to cardiovascular disease or cancer.

In this study, women who did even less than 2 minutes of vigorous physical activity a day but no other exercise had a lower risk for all major cardiovascular events and for heart attack and heart failure. Women who did the median daily vigorous exercise time — 3.4 minutes — had an even lower risk. In fact, in women, there was a direct relationship between daily exercise time and risk reduction.

In men, the study showed some benefit of vigorous physical activity, but the relationship was not as clear, said Stamatakis. “The effects were much subtler and, in most cases, did not reach statistical significance.”

 

Good News for Women

Stamatakis said it is unclear why there was such a gap in the benefits between men and women. “Studies like ours are not designed to explain the difference,” he added.

“This study does not show that [vigorous physical activity] is effective in women but not men,” said Yasina Somani, PhD, an exercise physiology researcher at the University of Leeds in England, who was not involved in the work. Because the study just observed people’s behavior, rather than studying people in controlled conditions such as a lab, she said you cannot reach conclusions about the benefits for men. “You still need some further research.”

Somani pointed out that a study like this one cannot determine how vigorous physical activity protects the heart. In her research, she has studied the ways that exercise exerts effects on the heart. Exercise stresses the cardiovascular system, leading to physiological adaptation, and this may differ between men and women.

“Seeing this article motivates me to understand why women are responding even more than men. Do men need a greater volume of this exercise? If you’re carrying a 10-pound grocery bag up a flight of stairs, who is getting the greater stimulus?”

In fact, the study researchers think women’s exercise bursts might simply be harder for them. For some of the sample, the researchers had data on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max), a measure of cardiovascular fitness. During vigorous physical activity bouts, this measure showed that the effort for women averaged 83.2% of VO₂ max, whereas it was 70.5% for men.

Somani said, “For men, there needs to be more clarity and more understanding of what it is that provides that stimulus — the intensity, the mode of exercise.”

“People are very surprised that 20-30 seconds of high-intensity exercise several times a day can make a difference to their health,” said Stamatakis. “They think they need to do structured exercise,” such as at a gym, to benefit.

He said the message that even quick exercise hits are beneficial can help healthcare professionals foster preventive behavior. “Any health professional who deals with patients on a regular basis knows that physical activity is important for people’s overall well-being and prevention of chronic disease.” The difficulty is that many people cannot or simply do not exercise. “Some people cannot afford it, and some do not have the motivation to stick to a structured exercise program.”

But anyone can do vigorous physical activity, he said. “The entry level is very low. There are no special preparations, no special clothes, no money to spend, no time commitment. You are interspersing exercise across your day.”

The researchers are currently studying how to foster vigorous physical activity in everyday behavior. “We are codesigning programs with participants, engaging with middle-aged people who have never exercised, so that the program has the highest chance to be successful.” Stamatakis is looking at encouraging vigorous physical activity through wearable devices and coaching, including online options.

Somani said the study adds weight to the message that any exercise is worthwhile. “These are simple choices that you can make that don’t require engaging in more structured exercise. Whatever you can do — little things outside of a gym — can have a lot of benefit for you.”

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

Middle-aged women who did many short bursts of vigorous-intensity exercise — amounting to as little as 3 min/d — had a 45% lower risk for major adverse cardiovascular events, reported investigators.

This doesn’t mean just a walk in the park, explained Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, a researcher with the University of Sydney in Australia. He said the activity can be as short as 20-30 seconds, but it must be high intensity — “movement that gets us out of breath, gets our heart rate up” — and repeated several times daily.

Stamatakis and colleagues call this type of exercise vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity, and it involves intense movement in very short bouts that are part of daily life, like a quick stair climb or running for a bus.

In their study, published in The British Journal of Sports Medicine, most exercise bursts were less than a minute, and few were over 2 minutes.

This is the third study in which the international network of researchers has shown the health benefits of vigorous physical activity. They are upending the common view that “any physical activity under 10 minutes doesn’t count for health,” said Stamatakis.

 

Bursts of Energy

The three studies looked at data for thousands of middle-aged men and women aged 40-69 years collected in the UK Biobank. Their daily activity was measured using accelerometers worn on the wrist for 7 days. This is preferable to survey data, which Stamatakis said is often unreliable.

The analysis looked at people who reported that they did not do any other exercise, taking no more than a single walk during the week. Then their cardiovascular health was tracked for almost 8 years.

Previous studies of the same data have shown benefits of vigorous physical activity for risk for cancer and for risk for death, both overall and due to cardiovascular disease or cancer.

In this study, women who did even less than 2 minutes of vigorous physical activity a day but no other exercise had a lower risk for all major cardiovascular events and for heart attack and heart failure. Women who did the median daily vigorous exercise time — 3.4 minutes — had an even lower risk. In fact, in women, there was a direct relationship between daily exercise time and risk reduction.

In men, the study showed some benefit of vigorous physical activity, but the relationship was not as clear, said Stamatakis. “The effects were much subtler and, in most cases, did not reach statistical significance.”

 

Good News for Women

Stamatakis said it is unclear why there was such a gap in the benefits between men and women. “Studies like ours are not designed to explain the difference,” he added.

“This study does not show that [vigorous physical activity] is effective in women but not men,” said Yasina Somani, PhD, an exercise physiology researcher at the University of Leeds in England, who was not involved in the work. Because the study just observed people’s behavior, rather than studying people in controlled conditions such as a lab, she said you cannot reach conclusions about the benefits for men. “You still need some further research.”

Somani pointed out that a study like this one cannot determine how vigorous physical activity protects the heart. In her research, she has studied the ways that exercise exerts effects on the heart. Exercise stresses the cardiovascular system, leading to physiological adaptation, and this may differ between men and women.

“Seeing this article motivates me to understand why women are responding even more than men. Do men need a greater volume of this exercise? If you’re carrying a 10-pound grocery bag up a flight of stairs, who is getting the greater stimulus?”

In fact, the study researchers think women’s exercise bursts might simply be harder for them. For some of the sample, the researchers had data on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max), a measure of cardiovascular fitness. During vigorous physical activity bouts, this measure showed that the effort for women averaged 83.2% of VO₂ max, whereas it was 70.5% for men.

Somani said, “For men, there needs to be more clarity and more understanding of what it is that provides that stimulus — the intensity, the mode of exercise.”

“People are very surprised that 20-30 seconds of high-intensity exercise several times a day can make a difference to their health,” said Stamatakis. “They think they need to do structured exercise,” such as at a gym, to benefit.

He said the message that even quick exercise hits are beneficial can help healthcare professionals foster preventive behavior. “Any health professional who deals with patients on a regular basis knows that physical activity is important for people’s overall well-being and prevention of chronic disease.” The difficulty is that many people cannot or simply do not exercise. “Some people cannot afford it, and some do not have the motivation to stick to a structured exercise program.”

But anyone can do vigorous physical activity, he said. “The entry level is very low. There are no special preparations, no special clothes, no money to spend, no time commitment. You are interspersing exercise across your day.”

The researchers are currently studying how to foster vigorous physical activity in everyday behavior. “We are codesigning programs with participants, engaging with middle-aged people who have never exercised, so that the program has the highest chance to be successful.” Stamatakis is looking at encouraging vigorous physical activity through wearable devices and coaching, including online options.

Somani said the study adds weight to the message that any exercise is worthwhile. “These are simple choices that you can make that don’t require engaging in more structured exercise. Whatever you can do — little things outside of a gym — can have a lot of benefit for you.”

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