Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to [email protected] with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to [email protected] with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Federal Practitioner invites VA, DoD, and PHS health care professionals and researchers to contribute to a future special issue on neurology. Topics of interest include epilepsy, headache and migraine, COVID-19 and neurology, Alzheimer and dementia, MS, and other neurological disorders.

Interested authors should submit an abstract to [email protected] with the subject line “Neurology Special Issue” for consideration. Once the editorial team confirms the article is eligible for consideration, authors will be asked to submit their manuscript in full through Editorial Manager. 

Federal Practitioner never charges authors or readers. All submissions undergo a double-blinded peer review before publication. Accepted manuscripts are always available for free online at www.mdedge.com/fedprac and on PubMed Central.  

Federal Practitioner welcomes original research, commentaries, clinical reviews, program profiles, case reports, and other evidence-based articles. The updated and complete submission guidelines, including details about the style and format, can be found here:

http://www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/submission-guidelines

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

The human pregnancy data reported for these 16 agents are very limited as only 8 of the drugs have this data. However, the 8 reports indicated that the use of these drugs was highly important for the mother and did not cause embryo/fetal harm.

• Acetylcysteine

The need for this antidote in a pregnant or lactating woman is most likely a rare requirement. However, the need for this agent does occur in women who have taken a potentially hepatic toxic dose of acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol).

• Black widow spider antivenin

Only three reports of the use of this agent in a pregnant woman have been located. In each case, the symptoms from the spider bite did not respond to other therapies but did within 1 hour to the antivenin. There was no fetal harm in these cases.

• Deferasirox

This agent is an oral iron-chelating agent used for the treatment of chronic iron overload. Five case reports have described its use without causing any fetal harm.

• Deferoxamine

This agent has been used in more than 65 pregnancies for acute iron overdose or for transfusion-dependent thalassemia. No reports have observed adverse human developmental effects.

• Digoxin immune FAB (ovine)

Several reports have described the use of this agent in pregnancy. No fetal harm has been observed, but none of the reports involved exposure during organogenesis. However, in cases of digoxin overdose, the maternal benefits of therapy should take priority over the embryo/fetus.

• Dimercaprol

Although the limited animal data suggest low risk, there are no reports of the use of this drug in human organogenesis. The absence of data prevents an assessment of the embryo-fetal risk, but the maternal benefit and indirect embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh that risk.

• Edetate calcium disodium

This agent is used to treat acute or chronic lead poisoning. It is compatible in pregnancy because the maternal and possibly the embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh any unknown direct or indirect risks.

• Flumazenil

The use of this drug in the third trimester has been reported in two cases. Because the drug is indicated to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system, the maternal benefit should far outweigh the unknown embryo-fetal risk.

• Glucagon

The embryo-fetal risks appear to be very low. Apparently, the drug does not cross the placenta.

• Glucarpidase

This drug is indicated for the treatment of methotrexate toxicity. There are no reports describing the use of this drug in pregnancy or during breastfeeding.

• Idarucizumab

This agent is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that is indicated for the reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran. No reports describing its use in human or animal pregnancy have been located. However, the maternal benefit appears to be high and probably outweighs the unknown risk to the embryo/fetus.

• Lanthanum carbonate

There are no human pregnancy or lactation data. It is used to reduce blood levels of phosphate in people with kidney disease.

• Pralidoxime

This agent relieves the paralysis of the muscles of respiration caused by an organophosphate pesticide or related compound. The human pregnancy experience is limited to two cases, one at 36 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, both of which delivered normal infants.

• Sapropterin

Four reports have described the use of sapropterin to lower blood phenylalanine levels in 31 pregnancies. There were no embryo-fetal adverse effects attributable to the drug.

• Sevelamer

Sevelamer is used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in people with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis. There are no human pregnancy or breastfeeding data.

• Succimer

This drug is a heavy metal–chelating agent that is indicated for the treatment of lead poisoning in pediatric patients. The drug was teratogenic in rats and mice. Two reports described the use of the drug in two pregnant women for lead poisoning. It has also been used as an antidote for the treatment of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning in adults, but there have been no reports of this use in pregnant patients.

Mr. Briggs, now retired, was a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The human pregnancy data reported for these 16 agents are very limited as only 8 of the drugs have this data. However, the 8 reports indicated that the use of these drugs was highly important for the mother and did not cause embryo/fetal harm.

• Acetylcysteine

The need for this antidote in a pregnant or lactating woman is most likely a rare requirement. However, the need for this agent does occur in women who have taken a potentially hepatic toxic dose of acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol).

• Black widow spider antivenin

Only three reports of the use of this agent in a pregnant woman have been located. In each case, the symptoms from the spider bite did not respond to other therapies but did within 1 hour to the antivenin. There was no fetal harm in these cases.

• Deferasirox

This agent is an oral iron-chelating agent used for the treatment of chronic iron overload. Five case reports have described its use without causing any fetal harm.

• Deferoxamine

This agent has been used in more than 65 pregnancies for acute iron overdose or for transfusion-dependent thalassemia. No reports have observed adverse human developmental effects.

• Digoxin immune FAB (ovine)

Several reports have described the use of this agent in pregnancy. No fetal harm has been observed, but none of the reports involved exposure during organogenesis. However, in cases of digoxin overdose, the maternal benefits of therapy should take priority over the embryo/fetus.

• Dimercaprol

Although the limited animal data suggest low risk, there are no reports of the use of this drug in human organogenesis. The absence of data prevents an assessment of the embryo-fetal risk, but the maternal benefit and indirect embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh that risk.

• Edetate calcium disodium

This agent is used to treat acute or chronic lead poisoning. It is compatible in pregnancy because the maternal and possibly the embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh any unknown direct or indirect risks.

• Flumazenil

The use of this drug in the third trimester has been reported in two cases. Because the drug is indicated to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system, the maternal benefit should far outweigh the unknown embryo-fetal risk.

• Glucagon

The embryo-fetal risks appear to be very low. Apparently, the drug does not cross the placenta.

• Glucarpidase

This drug is indicated for the treatment of methotrexate toxicity. There are no reports describing the use of this drug in pregnancy or during breastfeeding.

• Idarucizumab

This agent is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that is indicated for the reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran. No reports describing its use in human or animal pregnancy have been located. However, the maternal benefit appears to be high and probably outweighs the unknown risk to the embryo/fetus.

• Lanthanum carbonate

There are no human pregnancy or lactation data. It is used to reduce blood levels of phosphate in people with kidney disease.

• Pralidoxime

This agent relieves the paralysis of the muscles of respiration caused by an organophosphate pesticide or related compound. The human pregnancy experience is limited to two cases, one at 36 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, both of which delivered normal infants.

• Sapropterin

Four reports have described the use of sapropterin to lower blood phenylalanine levels in 31 pregnancies. There were no embryo-fetal adverse effects attributable to the drug.

• Sevelamer

Sevelamer is used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in people with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis. There are no human pregnancy or breastfeeding data.

• Succimer

This drug is a heavy metal–chelating agent that is indicated for the treatment of lead poisoning in pediatric patients. The drug was teratogenic in rats and mice. Two reports described the use of the drug in two pregnant women for lead poisoning. It has also been used as an antidote for the treatment of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning in adults, but there have been no reports of this use in pregnant patients.

Mr. Briggs, now retired, was a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

The human pregnancy data reported for these 16 agents are very limited as only 8 of the drugs have this data. However, the 8 reports indicated that the use of these drugs was highly important for the mother and did not cause embryo/fetal harm.

• Acetylcysteine

The need for this antidote in a pregnant or lactating woman is most likely a rare requirement. However, the need for this agent does occur in women who have taken a potentially hepatic toxic dose of acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol).

• Black widow spider antivenin

Only three reports of the use of this agent in a pregnant woman have been located. In each case, the symptoms from the spider bite did not respond to other therapies but did within 1 hour to the antivenin. There was no fetal harm in these cases.

• Deferasirox

This agent is an oral iron-chelating agent used for the treatment of chronic iron overload. Five case reports have described its use without causing any fetal harm.

• Deferoxamine

This agent has been used in more than 65 pregnancies for acute iron overdose or for transfusion-dependent thalassemia. No reports have observed adverse human developmental effects.

• Digoxin immune FAB (ovine)

Several reports have described the use of this agent in pregnancy. No fetal harm has been observed, but none of the reports involved exposure during organogenesis. However, in cases of digoxin overdose, the maternal benefits of therapy should take priority over the embryo/fetus.

• Dimercaprol

Although the limited animal data suggest low risk, there are no reports of the use of this drug in human organogenesis. The absence of data prevents an assessment of the embryo-fetal risk, but the maternal benefit and indirect embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh that risk.

• Edetate calcium disodium

This agent is used to treat acute or chronic lead poisoning. It is compatible in pregnancy because the maternal and possibly the embryo-fetal benefit appears to outweigh any unknown direct or indirect risks.

• Flumazenil

The use of this drug in the third trimester has been reported in two cases. Because the drug is indicated to reverse the effects of benzodiazepines on the central nervous system, the maternal benefit should far outweigh the unknown embryo-fetal risk.

• Glucagon

The embryo-fetal risks appear to be very low. Apparently, the drug does not cross the placenta.

• Glucarpidase

This drug is indicated for the treatment of methotrexate toxicity. There are no reports describing the use of this drug in pregnancy or during breastfeeding.

• Idarucizumab

This agent is a humanized monoclonal antibody fragment that is indicated for the reversal of the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran. No reports describing its use in human or animal pregnancy have been located. However, the maternal benefit appears to be high and probably outweighs the unknown risk to the embryo/fetus.

• Lanthanum carbonate

There are no human pregnancy or lactation data. It is used to reduce blood levels of phosphate in people with kidney disease.

• Pralidoxime

This agent relieves the paralysis of the muscles of respiration caused by an organophosphate pesticide or related compound. The human pregnancy experience is limited to two cases, one at 36 weeks and the other at 16 weeks, both of which delivered normal infants.

• Sapropterin

Four reports have described the use of sapropterin to lower blood phenylalanine levels in 31 pregnancies. There were no embryo-fetal adverse effects attributable to the drug.

• Sevelamer

Sevelamer is used to control high blood levels of phosphorus in people with chronic kidney disease who are on dialysis. There are no human pregnancy or breastfeeding data.

• Succimer

This drug is a heavy metal–chelating agent that is indicated for the treatment of lead poisoning in pediatric patients. The drug was teratogenic in rats and mice. Two reports described the use of the drug in two pregnant women for lead poisoning. It has also been used as an antidote for the treatment of arsenic, mercury, and cadmium poisoning in adults, but there have been no reports of this use in pregnant patients.

Mr. Briggs, now retired, was a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

The investigational IL-6 inhibitor olokizumab fared better than placebo and was noninferior to the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who’d had an inadequate response to methotrexate alone, according to new findings published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results from the phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo- and active-comparator–controlled trial, called Clinical Rheumatoid Arthritis Development for Olokizumab (CREDO2), add to the evidence base on the drug, which was developed by R-Pharm in Russia and has been approved for use there. Last year, researchers reported results from two trials showing sustained improvements in symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with an inadequate response to anti-TNF treatment.

“Once approved, olokizumab can be used in patients who have not responded well to either methotrexate or any biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug or any JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitor in combination with methotrexate or alone,” said Josef Smolen, MD, chair of rheumatology at the Medical University of Vienna and the lead author on the study.

Researchers randomized 1,648 patients to 64 mg of olokizumab every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab every 2 weeks, or placebo. All patient groups continued to receive methotrexate. A total of 89.7% of the participants completed 24 weeks of treatment. By that point, 74.1% of those receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks had achieved an ACR 20 response, an improvement of at least 20% in American College of Rheumatology response criteria, including tender and swollen joints, and 71.4% in the group receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks; 69.0% in the adalimumab group; and 46.5% in the placebo group had achieved an ACR 20 response. Olokizumab benefits were also seen for Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, disability index scores, and ACR 50 responses, the researchers reported.

Approved IL-6 inhibitors tocilizumab (Actemra) and sarilumab (Kevzara) target the interleukin (IL)-6 receptor (IL-6R), but olokizumab targets a protein, glycoprotein 130 (GP130), to which the IL-6 and IL-6–receptor complex binds. This approach could offer an added benefit, Dr. Smolen said.

“Previously studied anti–IL-6 antibodies and anti–IL-6R antibodies prevent binding of IL-6 to the IL-6R,” he said. “Moreover, the amount of protein needed to inhibit IL-6 is lower compared to the approved antireceptor antibodies. Olokizumab has also been shown to be effective when given every 4 weeks in many patients, compared with the need for weekly or every-other-week applications with tocilizumab and sarilumab. From these perspectives, this novel mode of action may, indeed, provide an advantage.”

ACR 70 – an improvement of at least 70% in the ACR response criteria – was an exploratory endpoint in the trial. This response was seen in 28% of those receiving olokizumab, compared with 11% in the placebo group, but researchers cautioned that “no conclusions can be drawn from these results.”

Another drug, sirukumab, also targeted the IL-6 ligand rather than the receptor, but was rejected by regulators in 2017 because so many more deaths occurred in the treatment group than the placebo group.

Dr. Smolen noted that there are three binding sites for IL-6, but olokizumab is the first to target site 3, the binding site for GP130. Mortality concerns haven’t been seen for olokizumab. There were three serious adverse events leading to death in the olokizumab every-2-weeks group; two in the olokizumab every-4-weeks group; one in the adalimumab group; and one in the placebo group.

“The fact that olokizumab targets another site on the IL-6 molecule than sirukumab may be a reason for the difference,” Dr. Smolen said.

Still, researchers noted that the time horizon for this trial is not very long.

“The trial was conducted in a relatively small number of patients and over a short duration, especially for the assessment of rare events or events requiring longer durations of exposure,” they wrote. “Longer and larger trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”

Dr. Smolen said he expects R-Pharm will file for regulatory approval in the United States and Europe, outside of Russia, in the next year.

Paul Emery, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Leeds (England) who has researched IL-6 therapy in RA, said olokizumab appears to be an effective product, but its use remains a question.

“The question is where it will fit into treatment strategies,” he said. “It’ll be very interesting.”

Dr. Emery pointed out that tocilizumab, which inhibits IL-6 by blocking the IL-6 receptor, was approved in the United States at a dosage that wasn’t optimally effective after failure with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), and wondered whether olokizumab would fare differently in this regard.

While Dr. Emery said it was important that no bad safety signal has been seen, he noted that “it’s a short-term study, and you do need to see the long-term data.”

“It seems to work at both the intervals it was tested at, 2 and 4 weeks. The unknowns are whether it will be as effective as IL-6 receptor blockers in other diseases,” such as giant cell arteritis, “and early disease, and whether it will work as well post TNFi,” he said. “It could be used as first advanced therapy for people with contraindications to TNFi, but initially the majority of its use will be after TNFi, and that’s why you need to see more data on such patients.”

He added: “The final issue will be pricing. Therefore, a positive study – but much is still unknown.”

The study was supported by R-Pharm. Dr. Smolen reports financial relationships with R-Pharm, AbbVie, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Emery reports financial relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and other companies, but not olokizumab manufacturer R-Pharm.

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

Questions about how to prescribe statins for primary prevention abound more than 3 decades after the drugs swept into clinical practice to become a first-line medical approach to cutting cardiovascular (CV) risk. Statin usage recommendations from different bodies can vary in ways both limited and fundamental, spurring the kind of debate that accompanies such a document newly issued by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

The document, little changed from the draft guidance released for public comment in February, was published online Aug. 23 in JAMA and the USPSTF website. It replaces a similar document issued by the task force in 2016.

The guidance has much in common with, but also sharp differences from, the influential 2018 guidelines on blood cholesterol management developed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and 10 other medical societies.

And it is provocative enough to elicit at least four editorials issued the same day across the JAMA family of journals. They highlight key differences between the two documents, among them the USPSTF guidance’s consistent, narrow reliance on 7.5% and 10% cut points for 10-year risk levels as estimated from the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equations (PCE).  

The guidance pairs the 10-year risk metric with at least one of only four prescribed CV risk factors to arrive at a limited choice of statin therapy recommendations. But its decision process isn’t bolstered by coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores or the prespecified “risk enhancers” that allowed the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines to be applied broadly and still be closely personalized. Those guidelines provide more PCE-based risk tiers for greater discrimination of risk and allow statins to be considered across a broader age group.

The USPSTF guidance’s evidence base consists of 23 clinical trials and three observational studies that directly compared a statin to either placebo or no statin, task force member John B. Wong, MD, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, told this news organization.

“In either kind of study, we found that the vast majority of patients had one or more of four risk factors – dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, or smoking. So, when we categorized high risk or increased risk, we included the presence of one or more of those risk factors,” said Dr. Wong, who is director of comparative effectiveness research at Tufts Clinical Translational Science Institute.
 

‘Sensible and practical’

The USPSTF guidance applies only to adults aged 40-75 without CV signs or symptoms and recommends a statin prescription for persons at “high risk,” that is with an estimated 10-year PCE-based risk for death or CV events of 10% or higher plus at least one of the four risk factors, a level B recommendation.

It recommends that “clinicians selectively offer a statin” to such persons at “increased risk,” who have at least one of the risk factors and an estimated 10-year risk for death or CV events of 7.5% to less than 10%, a level C recommendation. “The likelihood of benefit is smaller in this group” than in persons at high risk, the document states.

“These recommendations from the USPSTF are sensible and practical,” states Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, in a related editorial published the same day in JAMA Network Open. He calls the former B-level recommendation “a conservative approach” and the latter C-level recommendation a “nuanced approach.”

Both are “understandable” given that some studies suggest that the PCE may overestimate the CV risk, Dr. Virani observes. “On the other hand, statin therapy has been shown to be efficacious” at 10-year CV-risk levels down to about 5%.

The USPSTF document “I think is going to perpetuate a problem that we have in this country, which is vast undertreatment of lipids,” Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“We have a ton of good drugs that can lower cholesterol like crazy. If you lower cholesterol a lot, you improve outcomes,” he said. Dyslipidemia needs to be more widely and consistently treated, but “right now we have a pool of people in primary prevention who undertreat lipids and wait until disease happens – and then cardiologists get engaged. That’s an avoidable miss,” Dr. Peterson adds. He and JAMA Cardiology associate editor Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, provided JAMA with an editorial that accompanies the USPSTF guidance.

“My own personal bias would be that the [ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines] are closer to being right,” Dr. Peterson said. They – unlike the USPSTF guidance – cover people with risk levels below 7.5%, down to at least 5%. They allow risk enhancers like metabolic syndrome, inflammatory diseases, or family history into the decision process. “And they’re more aggressive in diabetes and more aggressive in older people,” he said.
 

Higher threshold for therapy

The USPSTF guidance also explicitly omits some high-risk groups and makes little accommodation for others who might especially benefit from statins, several of the editorials contend. For example, states a related JAMA Cardiology editorial published the same day, “The USPSTF does not comment on familial hypercholesterolemia or an LDL-C level of 190 mg/dL or higher,” yet they are covered by the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines.

In addition, write the editorialists, led by Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, “the USPSTF uses a slightly higher threshold for initiation of statin therapy” than was used in the ACC/AHA-multisociety guidelines. USPSTF, for example, calls for 10-year risk to reach 10% before recommending a statin prescription.

“One concern about the USPSTF setting the bar higher for statin initiation is that it reduces the number of young patients (age 40-50 years) at risk for premature myocardial infarction considered for treatment,” write Dr. Stone and colleagues.

That may be related to a weakness of the PCE-based decision process. “Because the PCE estimates of 10-year CV disease risk rely so heavily on age, sex, and race, use of these estimates to identify candidates for statins results in significant skewing of the population recommended for statins,” write Dr. Navar and Dr. Peterson in their JAMA editorial.

The risk enhancers in the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, about a dozen of them, compensate for that limitation to some extent. But the PCE-dominated USPSTF risk estimates will likely miss some groups that could potentially benefit from statin therapy, Dr. Peterson agreed in an interview.  

For example, younger adults facing years of high LDL-cholesterol levels could easily have PCE-based 10-year risk below 10%. “Having a high LDL over a lifetime puts you at really high risk,” he said. “Young people are missed even though their longitudinal risk is high.” So, by waiting for the lofty 10% level of risk over 10 years, “we limit the use of medicine that’s pretty cheap and highly effective.”

Dose intensity, adverse events

Also at variance from the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, the USPSTF states that, “Based on available evidence, use of moderate-intensity statin therapy seems reasonable for the primary prevention of CV disease in most persons.”  

The task force specifically explored whether evidence supports some use of high-intensity vs. moderate-intensity statins, Tufts University’s Dr. Wong said. “We found only one study that looked at that particular question, and it didn’t give us a strong answer.” An elevated rosuvastatin-related diabetes risk was apparent in the JUPITER trial, “but for the other studies, we did not find that association.”  

Most of the studies that explored statins for reducing risk for a first stroke or myocardial infarction used a moderate-dose statin, Dr. Wong said. “So that’s what we would usually recommend.”

But, Dr. Virani writes, consistent with the ACC/AHA-multispecialty guidelines, “clinicians should consider titrating the intensity of therapy to the risk of the individual.” Persons in certain high-risk primary prevention groups, such as those with end-organ injury from diabetes or LDL cholesterol at least 190 mg/dL, “may derive further benefit from the use of high-intensity statin therapy.”

Low-intensity statins are another potential option, but “in contrast with its 2016 recommendations, the USPSTF no longer recommends use of low-intensity statins in certain situations,” observes a fourth editorial published the same day in JAMA Internal Medicine, with lead author Anand R. Habib, MD, MPhil, and senior author Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, both of the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Redberg is the journal’s editor and has long expressed cautions about statin safety.

“While it is understandable that the Task Force was limited by lack of data on dosing, this change is unfortunate for patients because the frequency of adverse effects increases as the statin dose increases,” the editorial states. Although USPSTF did not find statistically significant harm from the drugs, “in clinical practice, adverse events are commonly reported with use of statins.”

It continues: “At present, there are further reasons to curb our enthusiasm about the use of statins for primary prevention of CV disease.” To illustrate, the editorial questioned primary-prevention statins’ balance of risk vs. clinically meaningful benefit, not benefit that is merely statistically significant.

“The purported benefits of statins in terms of relative risk reduction are fairly constant across baseline lipid levels and cardiovascular risk score categories for primary prevention,” the editorial states.

“Therefore, the absolute benefit for those in lower-risk categories is likely small given that their baseline absolute risk is low, while the chance of adverse effects is constant across risk categories.”

However, USPSTF states, “In pooled analyses of trial data, statin therapy was not associated with increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events or serious adverse events.” Nor did it find significant associations with cancers, liver enzyme abnormalities, or diabetes, including new-onset diabetes.

And, the USPSTF adds, “Evidence on the association between statins and renal or cognitive harms is very limited but does not indicate increased risk.”

USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Virani discloses receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institutes of Health, and the World Heart Federation; and personal fees from the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Peterson discloses serving on the JAMA editorial board and receiving research support to his institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Novartis. Dr. Navar discloses receiving research support to her institution from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Esperion, and Janssen; and receiving honoraria and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Janssen, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer. Dr. Stone discloses receiving an honorarium from Knowledge to Practice, an educational company not associated with the pharmaceutical industry; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Redberg discloses receiving research funding from the Arnold Ventures Foundation and the Greenwall Foundation.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

After 2 years of virtual gatherings, the annual European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 is back and celebrating its 70th birthday live in the raucously beautiful city of Barcelona.

Much of the upcoming event, scheduled for Aug. 26 to 29, however, will also be broadcast online, and the full program will be available on-demand after the meeting.

The hybrid format is intentional, leveraging the social interaction that only live meetings can provide and the global reach of online access, Program Committee Chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, told this news organization.

“It enables a lot of people who, for some reason, cannot travel to still connect, and it also provides what we’ve done in the past, but I think in a more natural way of doing it,” he said. “You can connect later on again, read, digest, look at sessions that you may have missed, and that’s a nice experience to take advantage of.”

Thus far, early registrations are favoring the sunny climes, with about 14,000 onsite and 4,200 online attendees.

This year’s spotlight theme is cardiac imaging, with programming throughout the Congress devoted to its role in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and, increasingly, guidance of interventions.

“Particularly as it relates to the transcatheter heart valves, it’s really a new discipline, and I think you can’t overemphasize that enough, because the interventional result directly depends on the quality of imaging,” Dr. Windecker said. “This will certainly logarithmically increase during the next few years.”

The always highly anticipated Hot Line sessions mushroomed this year to 10, featuring 36 studies, up from just 4 sessions and 20 studies last year.

“Especially during the COVID pandemic, many investigators and trialists experienced difficulties in recruitment, difficulties in terms of also personnel shortages, and so on. So really, we feel very privileged at the large number of submissions,” he said. “I think there are really very interesting ones, which we tried to spread throughout the 4 days.”
 

Hot Line sessions 1-5

Among the studies Dr. Windecker highlighted is TIME, which kicks off Hot Line 1 on Friday, Aug. 26, and aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medications taken at night are truly more cardioprotective than those taken in the morning.

The topic has been hotly debated, with proponents pointing to a near halving of mortality and cardiovascular events with bedtime dosing in the Hygia Chronotherapy trial. Skeptics question the validity and conduct of the trial, however, prompting an investigation by the European Heart Journal, which found no evidence of misconduct but has many looking for more definitive data.

Also in this session is SECURE, pitting a cardiovascular polypill that contains aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin against usual care in secondary prevention, and PERSPECTIVE, comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan on cognitive function in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Hot Line 2, the first of three Hot Lines taking place on Saturday, Aug. 27, features the Danish cardiovascular screening trial DANCAVAS, the phase 4 ADVOR trial of acetazolamide (Diamox) in acute decompensated heart failure (HF), and the DANFLU-1 trial of high- versus standard-dose influenza vaccine in the elderly.

Also on tap is the BOX trial, comparing two blood pressure and two oxygenation targets in comatose out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.

“It addresses an understudied patient population, and the second element is that sometimes things you do out of ordinary application – so, the application of oxygen – may have beneficial but also adverse impact,” Dr. Windecker said. “So, to study this in a randomized clinical trial is really important.”

Additionally, he highlighted REVIVED, which will be presented in Hot Line 3 and is the first trial to examine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with optimal medical therapy (OMT) versus OMT alone in the setting of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy.

“We have data from the STICH trial, where surgical revascularization was investigated in ischemic cardiomyopathy, but the open question is: What about PCI as revascularization?” Dr. Windecker said. “The other reason it’s interesting is that we have these evidence-based drugs that have dramatically improved outcomes in patients with heart failure, and REVIVED certainly has been conducted now in an era where at least some of these drugs are more systematically implemented.”

Rounding out this session are the Scottish ALL-HEART study of allopurinol in ischemic heart disease and EchoNet-RCT, looking at whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the accuracy of echocardiograms.

Hot Line 4 features DELIVER, a phase 3 trial of the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in HF with preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction. Topline results, released in May, showed that the study has met its primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.

Dr. Windecker said DELIVER will be a “highlight” of the meeting, particularly because EMPEROR-Preserved, presented at ESC 2021, showed a benefit for another SGLT2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, in this very specific setting. Two prespecified analyses will also be presented, pooling data from EMPEROR-Preserved and from the DAPA-HF study of dapagliflozin in patients with reduced EF. “This will be a session very rich in terms of information.”

Another not-to-be-missed session is Hot Line 5, which will focus on antithrombotic therapy, according to Dr. Windecker, who will cochair the Sunday, Aug. 28 session.

First up is the investigator-initiated INVICTUS-VKA, testing rivaroxaban noninferiority versus standard vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) and rheumatic heart disease, a setting in which non–vitamin K antagonists have not been sufficiently tested.

This is followed by three phase 2 trials – PACIFIC-AMI, PACIFIC-STROKE, and AXIOMATIC-SSP – investigating the novel factor XIa inhibitors BAY 2433334 and BMS-986177 in patients with myocardial infarction or stroke.
 

Hot Line sessions 6-10

Sunday’s Hot Line 6 takes another look at smartphone-based AFib screening in eBRAVE-HF, use of causal AI to improve the validity of cardiovascular risk prediction, and AI-enhanced detection of aortic stenosis.

Hot Line 7 rounds out the day, putting coronary imaging center stage. It includes perfusion scanning with MR or PET after a positive angiogram in DanNICAD-2, the PET tracer 18F-sodium fluoride as a marker of high-risk coronary plaques in patients with recent MIs in PREFFIR, and fractional flow reserve- versus angiography-guided PCI in acute MI with multivessel disease in FRAME-AMI.

After a weekend of top-notch science and, no doubt, a spot of revelry, the focus returns on Monday, Aug. 29 to three Hot Line sessions. The first of these, Hot Line 8, updates five clinical trials, including 5-year outcomes from ISCHEMIA-CKD EXTEND, 15-month results from MASTER DAPT, and primary results from FOURIER-OLE, the open-label extension study of evolocumab out to 5 years in approximately 1,600 study participants.

The session closes out with causes of mortality in the FIDELITY trial of finerenone and a win-ratio analysis of PARADISE-MI.

Hot Line 9, billed as an “evidence synthesis on clinically important questions,” includes a Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis on the effects of statins on muscle symptoms and a meta-analysis of angiotensin-receptor blockers and beta-blockers in Marfan syndrome from the Marfan Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.

Also featured is evidence on radial versus femoral access for coronary procedures, and PANTHER, a patient-level meta-analysis of aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as secondary prevention in patients with established coronary artery disease.

COVID-19, deeply rooted in the minds of attendees and considered in 52 separate sessions, takes over the final Hot Line session of the Congress. Hot Line 10 will report on antithrombotic therapy in critically ill patients in COVID-PACT and on anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin alone or in combination with rivaroxaban in the ACT inpatient and outpatient trials. Although such early trials have been largely negative, the latest details will be interesting to see, Dr. Windecker suggested.

In terms of COVID-19 protocols, ESC will recommend but not mandate masks and will have test kits available should attendees wish to have a test or if they become symptomatic, he noted.
 

New guidelines released

Four new ESC guidelines will be released during the congress on cardio-oncology, ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death, pulmonary hypertension, and cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

In addition to a guideline overview on Friday, one guideline will be featured each day in a 1-hour session, with additional time for discussions with guideline task force members, and six sessions devoted to the implementation of existing guidelines in clinical practice.

The ESC already has a position paper on cardio-oncology, but now, for the first time, has a full guideline with formal laws and level-of-evidence recommendations, Dr. Windecker pointed out.

“I think what will be the great asset, not only of the guideline but out of this emerging field, is that people in the future will probably not only be treated when it’s too late or suffer from toxicity but that there will be screening, and people will be aware before the implementation of therapy,” he added.

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

What is the real goal of weight loss? In health care, reducing excess body fat is known to improve many complications faced by patients with obesity. Even modest to moderate weight loss contributes to improvements in health. Normalizing body weight is not required.

While our culture promotes an ideal body size, in the health care setting, our attention must focus on achieving health improvement. We need to be more tolerant of variations in body size if patients are healthy. Of note, varying amounts of weight loss produce improvement in the different complications of obesity, so the amount of weight loss required for improving one condition differs from that required to improve another condition.

When we prescribe weight loss for health improvement, we are trying to reduce both the mechanical burden of fat and the excess ectopic and visceral body fat that is driving disease. The good news about the physiology of weight loss is that we do not need to attain a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or even 30 to have health improvement. The excess abnormal body fat is the first to go!

Losing weight causes a disproportional reduction in ectopic and visceral fat depots. With a 5% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 9%. With 16% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 30%. Clearing of liver fat is even more dramatic. With 16% weight loss, 65% of liver fat is cleared.

Because ectopic abnormal fat is cleared preferentially with weight loss, it affects different tissues with varying amounts of weight loss.
 

Weight loss and diabetes

A close relationship exists between weight loss and insulin sensitivity. With just 5% weight loss, insulin sensitivity in the liver and adipose tissue is greatly improved, but while muscle insulin sensitivity is improved at just 5% weight loss, it continues to improve with further weight loss. Indeed, weight loss has enormous benefits in improving glycemia in prediabetes and diabetes.

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance, weight loss of 10% can eliminate progression to type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes who still have beta-cell reserve, 15% weight loss can produce diabetes remission – normoglycemia without diabetes medications.
 

Weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors

Even very small amounts of weight loss – 3% – can improve triglycerides and glycemia. It takes 5% weight loss to show benefits in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. For all of these, additional weight loss brings more improvement. Inflammatory markers are more difficult. It takes 10%-15% weight loss to improve most of these – for example, C-reactive protein.

Weight loss and other complications

It takes 10% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvements in symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. For knee pain, the relationship to improvement is not based on achieving a percentage loss. Each pound of weight lost can result in a fourfold reduction in the load exerted on the knee per step during daily activities, but it is important to reduce weight before there is structural damage, because weight loss can’t repair damaged knee joints. Moderate weight loss (5%-10%) produces improvements in quality-of-life measures, in urinary stress incontinence symptoms, and in measures of sexual function. It probably takes 15% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvement in cardiovascular events.

Must heavier patients lose more weight?

To answer this question, it is important to think in terms of percent weight loss rather than pounds or kilograms. In large studies of lifestyle intervention, of course individuals with higher BMI lost more weight. But the percentage weight loss was the same across BMI categories: class 1 (BMI 30-35), class 2 (BMI 35-40), class 3 (BMI > 40). Furthermore, the improvement in risk factors was the same across BMI categories. Those with class 3 obesity had the same improvements as those with class 1. This provides further rationale for thinking about weight loss as a percentage from baseline weight rather than as simply a weight-loss goal in pounds.

Goal setting is an important part of any behavioral intervention

At the start of a weight-loss intervention, the health care provider should raise the issue of the goal and the time course for achieving it. Patients often have unrealistic expectations, wanting to achieve large amounts of weight loss rapidly. Unfortunately, popular culture has reinforced this idea with advertisements using “lose 10 pounds the first week” and promoting before-and-after pictures of weight-loss results. The job of the health care provider is to coach and guide the patient in terms of achievable weight loss that can bring health improvement safely. Managing patient expectations is critical to long-term success.

Think in terms of percentage weight loss, not pounds, and set goals at achievable time points

Help patients translate a percent weight-loss goal to a pounds goal at 3, 6, and 12 months. With the emergence of medications approved for chronic weight management with robust weight-loss efficacy, it now is possible to achieve a weight-loss goal of 10% or 15% with regularity, and some patients will be able to achieve 20% or 25% weight loss with newer medications.

We should help our patients set a goal by calculating a goal for certain time points. A good goal for 3 months would be 5% weight loss. For our 200-lb patient, we would translate that to 10 lb in 3 months. For 6 months, the goal should be 10% (20 lb for our 200-lb patient). The usual trajectory of weight loss with lifestyle intervention alone is for a “plateau” at 6 months, although with newer medications, weight loss will continue for more than a year. That 1-year goal might be 15% (30 lb for our 200-lb patient) or even more, based on the patient’s baseline weight and body composition.

Weight-loss calculators can be useful tools for patients and health care providers. They can be found online and include the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner and the Pennington Biomedical Weight Loss Predictor Calculator. These tools give patients a realistic expectation of how fast weight loss can occur and provide guidelines to measure success.
 

Can patients lose too much weight?

In this patient population, losing too much weight is not typically a concern. However, newer medications are achieving average weight losses of 17% and 22% at 62 weeks, as reported by this news organization. There is a wide variation in response to these newer agents which target appetite, and many patients are losing more than the average percentages.

Remembering that the goal of weight loss is the reduction of excess abnormal body fat, we want patients to preserve as much lean mass as possible. Weight-bearing exercise can help during the weight-loss phase, but large or rapid weight loss can be concerning, especially in older individuals. When the BMI drops below 25, we want to watch patients carefully. Measurement of body composition, including bone mineral density, with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) can help. This is a scenario where dose reduction of antiobesity medication can be indicated, and good clinical judgment is required to keep weight loss at healthy levels.
 

The future of weight loss

In the past, our strategy has been to promote as much weight loss as possible. With more effective medications, our strategy will have to change to a treat-to-target approach, such as we already use in hypertension and diabetes.

With the ability to produce powerful effects on appetite will come the need to not only target weight loss but to target preservation of lean mass and even to target different approaches for weight-loss maintenance. At present, we have no evidence that stopping medications results in anything other than weight regain. The study of different approaches to weight-loss maintenance will require our full attention.

Dr. Ryan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, consultant, or trustee for: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand.

Donna Ryan, MD, is Professor Emerita, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.

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

What is the real goal of weight loss? In health care, reducing excess body fat is known to improve many complications faced by patients with obesity. Even modest to moderate weight loss contributes to improvements in health. Normalizing body weight is not required.

While our culture promotes an ideal body size, in the health care setting, our attention must focus on achieving health improvement. We need to be more tolerant of variations in body size if patients are healthy. Of note, varying amounts of weight loss produce improvement in the different complications of obesity, so the amount of weight loss required for improving one condition differs from that required to improve another condition.

When we prescribe weight loss for health improvement, we are trying to reduce both the mechanical burden of fat and the excess ectopic and visceral body fat that is driving disease. The good news about the physiology of weight loss is that we do not need to attain a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or even 30 to have health improvement. The excess abnormal body fat is the first to go!

Losing weight causes a disproportional reduction in ectopic and visceral fat depots. With a 5% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 9%. With 16% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 30%. Clearing of liver fat is even more dramatic. With 16% weight loss, 65% of liver fat is cleared.

Because ectopic abnormal fat is cleared preferentially with weight loss, it affects different tissues with varying amounts of weight loss.
 

Weight loss and diabetes

A close relationship exists between weight loss and insulin sensitivity. With just 5% weight loss, insulin sensitivity in the liver and adipose tissue is greatly improved, but while muscle insulin sensitivity is improved at just 5% weight loss, it continues to improve with further weight loss. Indeed, weight loss has enormous benefits in improving glycemia in prediabetes and diabetes.

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance, weight loss of 10% can eliminate progression to type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes who still have beta-cell reserve, 15% weight loss can produce diabetes remission – normoglycemia without diabetes medications.
 

Weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors

Even very small amounts of weight loss – 3% – can improve triglycerides and glycemia. It takes 5% weight loss to show benefits in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. For all of these, additional weight loss brings more improvement. Inflammatory markers are more difficult. It takes 10%-15% weight loss to improve most of these – for example, C-reactive protein.

Weight loss and other complications

It takes 10% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvements in symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. For knee pain, the relationship to improvement is not based on achieving a percentage loss. Each pound of weight lost can result in a fourfold reduction in the load exerted on the knee per step during daily activities, but it is important to reduce weight before there is structural damage, because weight loss can’t repair damaged knee joints. Moderate weight loss (5%-10%) produces improvements in quality-of-life measures, in urinary stress incontinence symptoms, and in measures of sexual function. It probably takes 15% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvement in cardiovascular events.

Must heavier patients lose more weight?

To answer this question, it is important to think in terms of percent weight loss rather than pounds or kilograms. In large studies of lifestyle intervention, of course individuals with higher BMI lost more weight. But the percentage weight loss was the same across BMI categories: class 1 (BMI 30-35), class 2 (BMI 35-40), class 3 (BMI > 40). Furthermore, the improvement in risk factors was the same across BMI categories. Those with class 3 obesity had the same improvements as those with class 1. This provides further rationale for thinking about weight loss as a percentage from baseline weight rather than as simply a weight-loss goal in pounds.

Goal setting is an important part of any behavioral intervention

At the start of a weight-loss intervention, the health care provider should raise the issue of the goal and the time course for achieving it. Patients often have unrealistic expectations, wanting to achieve large amounts of weight loss rapidly. Unfortunately, popular culture has reinforced this idea with advertisements using “lose 10 pounds the first week” and promoting before-and-after pictures of weight-loss results. The job of the health care provider is to coach and guide the patient in terms of achievable weight loss that can bring health improvement safely. Managing patient expectations is critical to long-term success.

Think in terms of percentage weight loss, not pounds, and set goals at achievable time points

Help patients translate a percent weight-loss goal to a pounds goal at 3, 6, and 12 months. With the emergence of medications approved for chronic weight management with robust weight-loss efficacy, it now is possible to achieve a weight-loss goal of 10% or 15% with regularity, and some patients will be able to achieve 20% or 25% weight loss with newer medications.

We should help our patients set a goal by calculating a goal for certain time points. A good goal for 3 months would be 5% weight loss. For our 200-lb patient, we would translate that to 10 lb in 3 months. For 6 months, the goal should be 10% (20 lb for our 200-lb patient). The usual trajectory of weight loss with lifestyle intervention alone is for a “plateau” at 6 months, although with newer medications, weight loss will continue for more than a year. That 1-year goal might be 15% (30 lb for our 200-lb patient) or even more, based on the patient’s baseline weight and body composition.

Weight-loss calculators can be useful tools for patients and health care providers. They can be found online and include the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner and the Pennington Biomedical Weight Loss Predictor Calculator. These tools give patients a realistic expectation of how fast weight loss can occur and provide guidelines to measure success.
 

Can patients lose too much weight?

In this patient population, losing too much weight is not typically a concern. However, newer medications are achieving average weight losses of 17% and 22% at 62 weeks, as reported by this news organization. There is a wide variation in response to these newer agents which target appetite, and many patients are losing more than the average percentages.

Remembering that the goal of weight loss is the reduction of excess abnormal body fat, we want patients to preserve as much lean mass as possible. Weight-bearing exercise can help during the weight-loss phase, but large or rapid weight loss can be concerning, especially in older individuals. When the BMI drops below 25, we want to watch patients carefully. Measurement of body composition, including bone mineral density, with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) can help. This is a scenario where dose reduction of antiobesity medication can be indicated, and good clinical judgment is required to keep weight loss at healthy levels.
 

The future of weight loss

In the past, our strategy has been to promote as much weight loss as possible. With more effective medications, our strategy will have to change to a treat-to-target approach, such as we already use in hypertension and diabetes.

With the ability to produce powerful effects on appetite will come the need to not only target weight loss but to target preservation of lean mass and even to target different approaches for weight-loss maintenance. At present, we have no evidence that stopping medications results in anything other than weight regain. The study of different approaches to weight-loss maintenance will require our full attention.

Dr. Ryan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, consultant, or trustee for: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand.

Donna Ryan, MD, is Professor Emerita, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.

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

What is the real goal of weight loss? In health care, reducing excess body fat is known to improve many complications faced by patients with obesity. Even modest to moderate weight loss contributes to improvements in health. Normalizing body weight is not required.

While our culture promotes an ideal body size, in the health care setting, our attention must focus on achieving health improvement. We need to be more tolerant of variations in body size if patients are healthy. Of note, varying amounts of weight loss produce improvement in the different complications of obesity, so the amount of weight loss required for improving one condition differs from that required to improve another condition.

When we prescribe weight loss for health improvement, we are trying to reduce both the mechanical burden of fat and the excess ectopic and visceral body fat that is driving disease. The good news about the physiology of weight loss is that we do not need to attain a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or even 30 to have health improvement. The excess abnormal body fat is the first to go!

Losing weight causes a disproportional reduction in ectopic and visceral fat depots. With a 5% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 9%. With 16% weight loss, visceral fat is reduced by 30%. Clearing of liver fat is even more dramatic. With 16% weight loss, 65% of liver fat is cleared.

Because ectopic abnormal fat is cleared preferentially with weight loss, it affects different tissues with varying amounts of weight loss.
 

Weight loss and diabetes

A close relationship exists between weight loss and insulin sensitivity. With just 5% weight loss, insulin sensitivity in the liver and adipose tissue is greatly improved, but while muscle insulin sensitivity is improved at just 5% weight loss, it continues to improve with further weight loss. Indeed, weight loss has enormous benefits in improving glycemia in prediabetes and diabetes.

In patients with impaired glucose tolerance, weight loss of 10% can eliminate progression to type 2 diabetes. In patients with type 2 diabetes who still have beta-cell reserve, 15% weight loss can produce diabetes remission – normoglycemia without diabetes medications.
 

Weight loss and cardiovascular risk factors

Even very small amounts of weight loss – 3% – can improve triglycerides and glycemia. It takes 5% weight loss to show benefits in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as well as in HDL and LDL cholesterol levels. For all of these, additional weight loss brings more improvement. Inflammatory markers are more difficult. It takes 10%-15% weight loss to improve most of these – for example, C-reactive protein.

Weight loss and other complications

It takes 10% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvements in symptoms in obstructive sleep apnea and gastroesophageal reflux disease. For knee pain, the relationship to improvement is not based on achieving a percentage loss. Each pound of weight lost can result in a fourfold reduction in the load exerted on the knee per step during daily activities, but it is important to reduce weight before there is structural damage, because weight loss can’t repair damaged knee joints. Moderate weight loss (5%-10%) produces improvements in quality-of-life measures, in urinary stress incontinence symptoms, and in measures of sexual function. It probably takes 15% or more weight loss to demonstrate improvement in cardiovascular events.

Must heavier patients lose more weight?

To answer this question, it is important to think in terms of percent weight loss rather than pounds or kilograms. In large studies of lifestyle intervention, of course individuals with higher BMI lost more weight. But the percentage weight loss was the same across BMI categories: class 1 (BMI 30-35), class 2 (BMI 35-40), class 3 (BMI > 40). Furthermore, the improvement in risk factors was the same across BMI categories. Those with class 3 obesity had the same improvements as those with class 1. This provides further rationale for thinking about weight loss as a percentage from baseline weight rather than as simply a weight-loss goal in pounds.

Goal setting is an important part of any behavioral intervention

At the start of a weight-loss intervention, the health care provider should raise the issue of the goal and the time course for achieving it. Patients often have unrealistic expectations, wanting to achieve large amounts of weight loss rapidly. Unfortunately, popular culture has reinforced this idea with advertisements using “lose 10 pounds the first week” and promoting before-and-after pictures of weight-loss results. The job of the health care provider is to coach and guide the patient in terms of achievable weight loss that can bring health improvement safely. Managing patient expectations is critical to long-term success.

Think in terms of percentage weight loss, not pounds, and set goals at achievable time points

Help patients translate a percent weight-loss goal to a pounds goal at 3, 6, and 12 months. With the emergence of medications approved for chronic weight management with robust weight-loss efficacy, it now is possible to achieve a weight-loss goal of 10% or 15% with regularity, and some patients will be able to achieve 20% or 25% weight loss with newer medications.

We should help our patients set a goal by calculating a goal for certain time points. A good goal for 3 months would be 5% weight loss. For our 200-lb patient, we would translate that to 10 lb in 3 months. For 6 months, the goal should be 10% (20 lb for our 200-lb patient). The usual trajectory of weight loss with lifestyle intervention alone is for a “plateau” at 6 months, although with newer medications, weight loss will continue for more than a year. That 1-year goal might be 15% (30 lb for our 200-lb patient) or even more, based on the patient’s baseline weight and body composition.

Weight-loss calculators can be useful tools for patients and health care providers. They can be found online and include the National Institutes of Health Body Weight Planner and the Pennington Biomedical Weight Loss Predictor Calculator. These tools give patients a realistic expectation of how fast weight loss can occur and provide guidelines to measure success.
 

Can patients lose too much weight?

In this patient population, losing too much weight is not typically a concern. However, newer medications are achieving average weight losses of 17% and 22% at 62 weeks, as reported by this news organization. There is a wide variation in response to these newer agents which target appetite, and many patients are losing more than the average percentages.

Remembering that the goal of weight loss is the reduction of excess abnormal body fat, we want patients to preserve as much lean mass as possible. Weight-bearing exercise can help during the weight-loss phase, but large or rapid weight loss can be concerning, especially in older individuals. When the BMI drops below 25, we want to watch patients carefully. Measurement of body composition, including bone mineral density, with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) can help. This is a scenario where dose reduction of antiobesity medication can be indicated, and good clinical judgment is required to keep weight loss at healthy levels.
 

The future of weight loss

In the past, our strategy has been to promote as much weight loss as possible. With more effective medications, our strategy will have to change to a treat-to-target approach, such as we already use in hypertension and diabetes.

With the ability to produce powerful effects on appetite will come the need to not only target weight loss but to target preservation of lean mass and even to target different approaches for weight-loss maintenance. At present, we have no evidence that stopping medications results in anything other than weight regain. The study of different approaches to weight-loss maintenance will require our full attention.

Dr. Ryan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, consultant, or trustee for: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Amgen; Calibrate; Epitomee; Gila; Lilly; Novo Nordisk; Scientific Intake; Wondr Health; Xeno Biosciences; YSOPIA; Zealand.

Donna Ryan, MD, is Professor Emerita, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.

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

Dermatologists spent less time with Asian patients with psoriasis than patients of other races and ethnicities in a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2010 to 2016.

Yet the reasons for the difference are unclear and in need of further research, said the investigators and dermatologists who were asked to comment on the research.

The study covered over 4 million visits for psoriasis and found that the mean duration of visits for Asian patients was 9.2 minutes, compared with 15.7 minutes for Hispanic or Latino patients, 20.7 minutes for non-Hispanic Black patients, and 15.4 minutes for non-Hispanic White patients.

The mean duration of visits with Asian patients was 39.9% shorter, compared with visits with White patients (beta coefficient, –5,747; 95% confidence interval, –11.026 to –0.469; P = .03), and 40.6% shorter, compared with visits with non-Asian patients combined (beta coefficient, –5.908; 95% CI, –11.147 to –0.669, P = .03), April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology and director of the psoriasis program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Kevin K. Wu, MD, a dermatology resident at USC, said in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The etiology of these differences is unclear,” they wrote. “It is possible that factors such as unconscious bias, cultural differences in communication, or residual confounding may be responsible for the observed findings.”

Their findings came from multivariable linear regression analyses that adjusted for age, sex, type of visit (new or follow-up), visit complexity based on the number of reasons for the visit, insurance status (such as private insurance or Medicaid), psoriasis severity on the basis of systemic psoriasis treatment or phototherapy, and complex topical regimens (three or more topical agents).

Commenting on the results, Deborah A. Scott, MD, codirector of the skin of color dermatology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that visit length “is a reasonable parameter to look at among many others” when investigating potential disparities in care.

“They’re equating [shorter visit times] with lack of time spent counseling patients,” said Dr. Scott, who was not involved in the research. But there are “many variables” that can affect visit time, such as language differences, time spent with interpreters, and differences in patient educational levels.

Clarissa Yang, MD, dermatologist-in-chief at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, agreed. “We’re worried about there being a quality of care issue. However, there could also be differences culturally in how [the patients] interact with their physicians – their styles and the questions they ask,” she said in an interview. “The study is a good first step to noting that there may be a disparity,” and there is a need to break down the differences “into more granularity.”

Previous research, the authors wrote, has found that Asian patients were less likely to receive counseling from physicians, compared with White patients. And “paradoxically,” they noted, Asian individuals tend to present with more severe psoriasis than patients of other races and ethnicities.

Dr. Scott said the tendency to present with more severe psoriasis has been documented in patients with skin of color broadly – likely because of delays in recognition and treatment.

Race and ethnicity in the study were self-reported by patients, and missing data were imputed by NAMCS researchers using a sequential regression method. Patients who did not report race and ethnicity may have different characteristics affecting visit duration than those who did report the information, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Wu said in describing their study’s limitations.

Other differences found

In addition to visit length, they found significant differences in mean age and in the use of complex topical regimens. The mean ages of Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and non-Hispanic Black patients were 37.2, 44.7, and 33.3 years, respectively. Complex topical regimens were prescribed to 11.8% of Asian patients, compared with 1.5% of Black and 1.1% of White patients.

For practicing dermatologists, knowing for now that Asian patients have shorter visits “may bring to light some consciousness to how we practice,” Dr. Yang noted. “We may counsel differently, we may spend differing amounts of time – for reasons still unknown. But being generally aware can help us to shift any unconscious bias that may be there.”

Dermatologists, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Wu wrote, “need to allow sufficient time to develop strong physician-patient communication regardless of patient background.”

The NAMCS – administered by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics – collects data on a sample of visits provided by non–federally employed office-based physicians.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed receiving personal fees from AbbVie and Regeneron for research funding and serving as a scientific adviser and speaker for additional pharmaceutical and therapeutic companies. Dr. Wu, Dr. Scott, and Dr. Yang did not report any disclosures.
 

Dermatologists spent less time with Asian patients with psoriasis than patients of other races and ethnicities in a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2010 to 2016.

Yet the reasons for the difference are unclear and in need of further research, said the investigators and dermatologists who were asked to comment on the research.

The study covered over 4 million visits for psoriasis and found that the mean duration of visits for Asian patients was 9.2 minutes, compared with 15.7 minutes for Hispanic or Latino patients, 20.7 minutes for non-Hispanic Black patients, and 15.4 minutes for non-Hispanic White patients.

The mean duration of visits with Asian patients was 39.9% shorter, compared with visits with White patients (beta coefficient, –5,747; 95% confidence interval, –11.026 to –0.469; P = .03), and 40.6% shorter, compared with visits with non-Asian patients combined (beta coefficient, –5.908; 95% CI, –11.147 to –0.669, P = .03), April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology and director of the psoriasis program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Kevin K. Wu, MD, a dermatology resident at USC, said in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The etiology of these differences is unclear,” they wrote. “It is possible that factors such as unconscious bias, cultural differences in communication, or residual confounding may be responsible for the observed findings.”

Their findings came from multivariable linear regression analyses that adjusted for age, sex, type of visit (new or follow-up), visit complexity based on the number of reasons for the visit, insurance status (such as private insurance or Medicaid), psoriasis severity on the basis of systemic psoriasis treatment or phototherapy, and complex topical regimens (three or more topical agents).

Commenting on the results, Deborah A. Scott, MD, codirector of the skin of color dermatology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that visit length “is a reasonable parameter to look at among many others” when investigating potential disparities in care.

“They’re equating [shorter visit times] with lack of time spent counseling patients,” said Dr. Scott, who was not involved in the research. But there are “many variables” that can affect visit time, such as language differences, time spent with interpreters, and differences in patient educational levels.

Clarissa Yang, MD, dermatologist-in-chief at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, agreed. “We’re worried about there being a quality of care issue. However, there could also be differences culturally in how [the patients] interact with their physicians – their styles and the questions they ask,” she said in an interview. “The study is a good first step to noting that there may be a disparity,” and there is a need to break down the differences “into more granularity.”

Previous research, the authors wrote, has found that Asian patients were less likely to receive counseling from physicians, compared with White patients. And “paradoxically,” they noted, Asian individuals tend to present with more severe psoriasis than patients of other races and ethnicities.

Dr. Scott said the tendency to present with more severe psoriasis has been documented in patients with skin of color broadly – likely because of delays in recognition and treatment.

Race and ethnicity in the study were self-reported by patients, and missing data were imputed by NAMCS researchers using a sequential regression method. Patients who did not report race and ethnicity may have different characteristics affecting visit duration than those who did report the information, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Wu said in describing their study’s limitations.

Other differences found

In addition to visit length, they found significant differences in mean age and in the use of complex topical regimens. The mean ages of Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and non-Hispanic Black patients were 37.2, 44.7, and 33.3 years, respectively. Complex topical regimens were prescribed to 11.8% of Asian patients, compared with 1.5% of Black and 1.1% of White patients.

For practicing dermatologists, knowing for now that Asian patients have shorter visits “may bring to light some consciousness to how we practice,” Dr. Yang noted. “We may counsel differently, we may spend differing amounts of time – for reasons still unknown. But being generally aware can help us to shift any unconscious bias that may be there.”

Dermatologists, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Wu wrote, “need to allow sufficient time to develop strong physician-patient communication regardless of patient background.”

The NAMCS – administered by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics – collects data on a sample of visits provided by non–federally employed office-based physicians.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed receiving personal fees from AbbVie and Regeneron for research funding and serving as a scientific adviser and speaker for additional pharmaceutical and therapeutic companies. Dr. Wu, Dr. Scott, and Dr. Yang did not report any disclosures.
 

Dermatologists spent less time with Asian patients with psoriasis than patients of other races and ethnicities in a cross-sectional study using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) from 2010 to 2016.

Yet the reasons for the difference are unclear and in need of further research, said the investigators and dermatologists who were asked to comment on the research.

The study covered over 4 million visits for psoriasis and found that the mean duration of visits for Asian patients was 9.2 minutes, compared with 15.7 minutes for Hispanic or Latino patients, 20.7 minutes for non-Hispanic Black patients, and 15.4 minutes for non-Hispanic White patients.

The mean duration of visits with Asian patients was 39.9% shorter, compared with visits with White patients (beta coefficient, –5,747; 95% confidence interval, –11.026 to –0.469; P = .03), and 40.6% shorter, compared with visits with non-Asian patients combined (beta coefficient, –5.908; 95% CI, –11.147 to –0.669, P = .03), April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology and director of the psoriasis program at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and Kevin K. Wu, MD, a dermatology resident at USC, said in a research letter published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The etiology of these differences is unclear,” they wrote. “It is possible that factors such as unconscious bias, cultural differences in communication, or residual confounding may be responsible for the observed findings.”

Their findings came from multivariable linear regression analyses that adjusted for age, sex, type of visit (new or follow-up), visit complexity based on the number of reasons for the visit, insurance status (such as private insurance or Medicaid), psoriasis severity on the basis of systemic psoriasis treatment or phototherapy, and complex topical regimens (three or more topical agents).

Commenting on the results, Deborah A. Scott, MD, codirector of the skin of color dermatology program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that visit length “is a reasonable parameter to look at among many others” when investigating potential disparities in care.

“They’re equating [shorter visit times] with lack of time spent counseling patients,” said Dr. Scott, who was not involved in the research. But there are “many variables” that can affect visit time, such as language differences, time spent with interpreters, and differences in patient educational levels.

Clarissa Yang, MD, dermatologist-in-chief at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, agreed. “We’re worried about there being a quality of care issue. However, there could also be differences culturally in how [the patients] interact with their physicians – their styles and the questions they ask,” she said in an interview. “The study is a good first step to noting that there may be a disparity,” and there is a need to break down the differences “into more granularity.”

Previous research, the authors wrote, has found that Asian patients were less likely to receive counseling from physicians, compared with White patients. And “paradoxically,” they noted, Asian individuals tend to present with more severe psoriasis than patients of other races and ethnicities.

Dr. Scott said the tendency to present with more severe psoriasis has been documented in patients with skin of color broadly – likely because of delays in recognition and treatment.

Race and ethnicity in the study were self-reported by patients, and missing data were imputed by NAMCS researchers using a sequential regression method. Patients who did not report race and ethnicity may have different characteristics affecting visit duration than those who did report the information, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Wu said in describing their study’s limitations.

Other differences found

In addition to visit length, they found significant differences in mean age and in the use of complex topical regimens. The mean ages of Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and non-Hispanic Black patients were 37.2, 44.7, and 33.3 years, respectively. Complex topical regimens were prescribed to 11.8% of Asian patients, compared with 1.5% of Black and 1.1% of White patients.

For practicing dermatologists, knowing for now that Asian patients have shorter visits “may bring to light some consciousness to how we practice,” Dr. Yang noted. “We may counsel differently, we may spend differing amounts of time – for reasons still unknown. But being generally aware can help us to shift any unconscious bias that may be there.”

Dermatologists, Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Wu wrote, “need to allow sufficient time to develop strong physician-patient communication regardless of patient background.”

The NAMCS – administered by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics – collects data on a sample of visits provided by non–federally employed office-based physicians.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed receiving personal fees from AbbVie and Regeneron for research funding and serving as a scientific adviser and speaker for additional pharmaceutical and therapeutic companies. Dr. Wu, Dr. Scott, and Dr. Yang did not report any disclosures.
 

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol is a major preventable risk factor for cancer. New data suggest that reducing alcohol intake reduces the risk of developing an alcohol-related cancer.

The findings, from a large population-based study conducted in Korea, underscore the importance of encouraging individuals to quit drinking or to reduce alcohol consumption to help reduce cancer risk, the authors noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

It provides evidence “suggesting that cancer risk can be meaningfully altered by changing the amount of alcoholic beverages consumed,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Neal D. Freedman, PhD, and Christian C. Abnet, PhD, of the division of cancer epidemiology and genetics at the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md.

“Alcohol consumption is an important cancer risk factor,” they wrote, adding that a “well examined dose-response association has been reported, with highest risks observed among people who drink 3 alcoholic beverages per day and higher.”

The new study shows that a “reduction in use was associated with lower risk, particularly among participants who started drinking at a heavy level,” they noted.

Previous studies have estimated that alcohol use accounts for nearly 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide and nearly 5% of U.S. cancer cases overall.

But the figures are much higher for some specific cancers. That same U.S. study found that alcohol accounts for at least 45% of oral cavity/pharyngeal cancers and at least 25% of laryngeal cancers, as well as 12.1% of female breast cancers, 11.1% of colorectal cancers, 10.5% of liver cancers, and 7.7% of esophageal cancers, as previously reported by this news organization.
 

New findings on reducing intake

This latest study involved an analysis of data on 4.5 million individuals who were adult beneficiaries of the Korean National Health Insurance Service. The median age of the participants was 53.6 years, and they underwent a national health screening in 2009 and 2011.

During median follow-up of 6.4 years, the cancer incidence rate was 7.7 per 1,000 person-years.

Information on alcohol consumption was collected from self-administered questionnaires completed during the health screenings. Participants were categorized on the basis of alcohol consumption: none (0 g/d), mild ( less than 15 g/d), moderate (15-29.9 g/d), and heavy (30 or more g/d).

Compared with those who sustained their alcohol consumption level during the study period, those who increased their level were at higher risk of alcohol-related cancers and all cancers, the investigators found.

The increase in alcohol-related cancer incidence was dose dependent: Those who changed from nondrinking to mild, moderate, or heavy drinking were at increasingly higher risk for alcohol-related cancer, compared with those who remained nondrinkers (adjusted hazard ratios [aHRs], 1.03, 1.10, and 1.34, respectively).

Participants who were mild drinkers at baseline and who quit drinking were at lower risk of alcohol-related cancer, compared with those whose drinking level was sustained (aHR, 0.96). Those with moderate or heavy drinking levels who quit drinking were at higher overall cancer risk than were those who sustained their drinking levels. However, this difference was negated when quitting was sustained, the authors noted.

For heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels, cancer incidence was reduced, compared with those who sustained heavy drinking levels. This was true for those who changed from heavy to moderate drinking (aHR, 0.91 for alcohol-related cancers; 0.96 for alcohol-related cancers) and those who changed from heavy to mild drinking (aHR, 0.92 for alcohol-related cancers and all cancers).

“Alcohol cessation and reduction should be reinforced for the prevention of cancer,” concluded the authors.
 

Implications and future directions

The editorialists noted that the study is limited by several factors, such as a short interval between assessments and relatively short follow-up. There is also no information on participants’ alcohol consumption earlier in life or about other healthy lifestyle changes during the study period. In addition, there is no mention of a genetic variant affecting aldehyde dehydrogenase that leads to alcohol-induced flushing, which is common among East Asians.

Despite of these limitations, the study provides “important new findings about the potential role of changes in alcohol consumption in cancer risk,” Dr. Freedman and Dr. Abnet noted. Future studies should examine the association between alcohol intake and cancer risk in other populations and use longer intervals between assessments, they suggested.

“Such studies are needed to move the field forward and inform public health guidance on cancer prevention,” the editorialists concluded.

The authors of the study and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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