Vigorous physical activity for 20 minutes a day was enough to maximize cardiorespiratory benefits in adolescents, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Current recommendations for physical activity in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization call for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for an average of 60 minutes a day for physical and mental health; however, guidance on how much physical activity teens need to maximize cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has not been determined, Samuel Joseph Burden, BMedSci, of John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

“Although data in young people are limited, adult studies have shown that regular, brief vigorous physical activity is highly effective at improving health markers, including CRF, which is also an important marker of health in youth,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined the associations between physical activity intensity and maximal CRF. The study population included 339 adolescents aged 13-14 years who were evaluated during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to measure the intensity of physical activity and participated in 20-meter shuttle runs to demonstrate CRF. The researchers used partial multivariable linear regression to assess variables at different intensities including moderate physical activity (MPA), light physical activity (LPA), and sedentary time, as well as vigorous physical activity (VPA).

The wrist monitors measured the intensities of physical activity based on the bandpass-filtered followed by Euclidean norm metric (BFEN), a validated metric. “Previously validated thresholds for BFEN were used to determine the average duration of daily physical activity at each intensity: 0.1 g for LPA, 0.314 g for MPA, and 0.998 g for VPA,” the researchers wrote. Physical activity below the threshold for LPA was categorized as sedentary time.

Participants wore the accelerometers for 1 week; value recording included at least 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day, and each valid day required more than 6 hours of awake time.

Overall, VPA for up to 20 minutes was significantly associated with improved CRF. However, the benefits on CRF plateaued after that time, and longer duration of VPA was not associated with significantly greater improvements in CRF. Neither MPA nor LPA were associated with any improvements in CRF.

Participants who engaged in an average of 14 minutes (range, 12-17 minutes) of VPA per day met the median CRF.

The researchers also conducted independent t tests to assess differences in VPA at different CRF thresholds.

Those in the highest quartile of VPA had CRF z scores 1.03 higher, compared with those in the lower quartiles.

Given that current PA guidelines involve a combination of moderate and vigorous PA that could be met by MPA with no VPA, the current findings have public health implications for improving CRF in adolescents, the researchers wrote.

Even with MPA as an option, most adolescents fail to meet the recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA, they said. “One possible reason is that this duration is quite long, requiring a daily time commitment that some may find difficult to maintain. A shorter target of 20 minutes might be easier to schedule daily and a focus on VPA would simplify messages about the intensity of activity that is likely to improve CRF.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only two schools in the United Kingdom, which may limit generalizability, and future research would ideally include a more direct assessment of VO₂ max, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, including teens with a wide range of body mass index as well as CRF.

Future research is needed to test whether interventions based on a target of 20 minutes of VPA creates significant improvements in adolescent cardiometabolic health, the researchers concluded.
 

Any activity has value for sedentary teens

The current study suggests that counseling teens about physical activity may be less challenging for clinicians if optimal cardiorespiratory benefits can be reached with shorter bouts of activity, Michele LaBotz, MD, of Intermed Sports Medicine, South Portland, Maine, and Sarah Hoffman, DO, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results have two key implications for pediatricians, the authors said. First, “optimal CRF can be achieved with much shorter periods of activity than previously recommended.” Second, “current ‘moderate to vigorous’ PA recommendations may not be sufficient to improve CRF in adolescents, if achieved through moderate activity only.”

However, the editorialists emphasized that, although shorter periods of higher-intensity exercise reduce the time burden for teens and families, specific education is needed to explain the extra effort involved in exercising vigorously enough for cardiorespiratory benefits.

Patients can be counseled that activity is vigorous when they start to sweat, their face gets red, and they feel short of breath and unable to talk during activity,” they explained. These sensations may be new and uncomfortable for children and teens who have been quite sedentary or used to low-intensity activity. Dr. LaBotz and Dr. Hoffman advised pediatricians to counsel patients to build intensity gradually, with “exercise snacks,” that involve several minutes of activity that become more challenging over time.

“Exercise snacks can include anything that elevates the heart rate for a minute or more, such as running up and down the stairs a few times; chasing the dog around the backyard; or just putting on some music and dancing hard,” the editorialists wrote.

“Some exercise is better than none, and extrapolating from adult data, the biggest benefit likely occurs when we can help our most sedentary and least fit patients become a bit more active, even if it falls short of currently recommended levels,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to various researchers from the British Heart Foundation, the Elizabeth Casson Trust, the U.K. National Institute of Health Research, the Professor Nigel Groome Studentship scheme (Oxford Brookes University), and the U.K. Department of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Vigorous physical activity for 20 minutes a day was enough to maximize cardiorespiratory benefits in adolescents, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Current recommendations for physical activity in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization call for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for an average of 60 minutes a day for physical and mental health; however, guidance on how much physical activity teens need to maximize cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has not been determined, Samuel Joseph Burden, BMedSci, of John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

“Although data in young people are limited, adult studies have shown that regular, brief vigorous physical activity is highly effective at improving health markers, including CRF, which is also an important marker of health in youth,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined the associations between physical activity intensity and maximal CRF. The study population included 339 adolescents aged 13-14 years who were evaluated during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to measure the intensity of physical activity and participated in 20-meter shuttle runs to demonstrate CRF. The researchers used partial multivariable linear regression to assess variables at different intensities including moderate physical activity (MPA), light physical activity (LPA), and sedentary time, as well as vigorous physical activity (VPA).

The wrist monitors measured the intensities of physical activity based on the bandpass-filtered followed by Euclidean norm metric (BFEN), a validated metric. “Previously validated thresholds for BFEN were used to determine the average duration of daily physical activity at each intensity: 0.1 g for LPA, 0.314 g for MPA, and 0.998 g for VPA,” the researchers wrote. Physical activity below the threshold for LPA was categorized as sedentary time.

Participants wore the accelerometers for 1 week; value recording included at least 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day, and each valid day required more than 6 hours of awake time.

Overall, VPA for up to 20 minutes was significantly associated with improved CRF. However, the benefits on CRF plateaued after that time, and longer duration of VPA was not associated with significantly greater improvements in CRF. Neither MPA nor LPA were associated with any improvements in CRF.

Participants who engaged in an average of 14 minutes (range, 12-17 minutes) of VPA per day met the median CRF.

The researchers also conducted independent t tests to assess differences in VPA at different CRF thresholds.

Those in the highest quartile of VPA had CRF z scores 1.03 higher, compared with those in the lower quartiles.

Given that current PA guidelines involve a combination of moderate and vigorous PA that could be met by MPA with no VPA, the current findings have public health implications for improving CRF in adolescents, the researchers wrote.

Even with MPA as an option, most adolescents fail to meet the recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA, they said. “One possible reason is that this duration is quite long, requiring a daily time commitment that some may find difficult to maintain. A shorter target of 20 minutes might be easier to schedule daily and a focus on VPA would simplify messages about the intensity of activity that is likely to improve CRF.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only two schools in the United Kingdom, which may limit generalizability, and future research would ideally include a more direct assessment of VO₂ max, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, including teens with a wide range of body mass index as well as CRF.

Future research is needed to test whether interventions based on a target of 20 minutes of VPA creates significant improvements in adolescent cardiometabolic health, the researchers concluded.
 

Any activity has value for sedentary teens

The current study suggests that counseling teens about physical activity may be less challenging for clinicians if optimal cardiorespiratory benefits can be reached with shorter bouts of activity, Michele LaBotz, MD, of Intermed Sports Medicine, South Portland, Maine, and Sarah Hoffman, DO, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results have two key implications for pediatricians, the authors said. First, “optimal CRF can be achieved with much shorter periods of activity than previously recommended.” Second, “current ‘moderate to vigorous’ PA recommendations may not be sufficient to improve CRF in adolescents, if achieved through moderate activity only.”

However, the editorialists emphasized that, although shorter periods of higher-intensity exercise reduce the time burden for teens and families, specific education is needed to explain the extra effort involved in exercising vigorously enough for cardiorespiratory benefits.

Patients can be counseled that activity is vigorous when they start to sweat, their face gets red, and they feel short of breath and unable to talk during activity,” they explained. These sensations may be new and uncomfortable for children and teens who have been quite sedentary or used to low-intensity activity. Dr. LaBotz and Dr. Hoffman advised pediatricians to counsel patients to build intensity gradually, with “exercise snacks,” that involve several minutes of activity that become more challenging over time.

“Exercise snacks can include anything that elevates the heart rate for a minute or more, such as running up and down the stairs a few times; chasing the dog around the backyard; or just putting on some music and dancing hard,” the editorialists wrote.

“Some exercise is better than none, and extrapolating from adult data, the biggest benefit likely occurs when we can help our most sedentary and least fit patients become a bit more active, even if it falls short of currently recommended levels,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to various researchers from the British Heart Foundation, the Elizabeth Casson Trust, the U.K. National Institute of Health Research, the Professor Nigel Groome Studentship scheme (Oxford Brookes University), and the U.K. Department of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Vigorous physical activity for 20 minutes a day was enough to maximize cardiorespiratory benefits in adolescents, based on data from more than 300 individuals.

Current recommendations for physical activity in children and adolescents from the World Health Organization call for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for an average of 60 minutes a day for physical and mental health; however, guidance on how much physical activity teens need to maximize cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has not been determined, Samuel Joseph Burden, BMedSci, of John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford (England), and colleagues wrote.

“Although data in young people are limited, adult studies have shown that regular, brief vigorous physical activity is highly effective at improving health markers, including CRF, which is also an important marker of health in youth,” the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers examined the associations between physical activity intensity and maximal CRF. The study population included 339 adolescents aged 13-14 years who were evaluated during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. Participants wore wrist accelerometers to measure the intensity of physical activity and participated in 20-meter shuttle runs to demonstrate CRF. The researchers used partial multivariable linear regression to assess variables at different intensities including moderate physical activity (MPA), light physical activity (LPA), and sedentary time, as well as vigorous physical activity (VPA).

The wrist monitors measured the intensities of physical activity based on the bandpass-filtered followed by Euclidean norm metric (BFEN), a validated metric. “Previously validated thresholds for BFEN were used to determine the average duration of daily physical activity at each intensity: 0.1 g for LPA, 0.314 g for MPA, and 0.998 g for VPA,” the researchers wrote. Physical activity below the threshold for LPA was categorized as sedentary time.

Participants wore the accelerometers for 1 week; value recording included at least 3 weekdays and 1 weekend day, and each valid day required more than 6 hours of awake time.

Overall, VPA for up to 20 minutes was significantly associated with improved CRF. However, the benefits on CRF plateaued after that time, and longer duration of VPA was not associated with significantly greater improvements in CRF. Neither MPA nor LPA were associated with any improvements in CRF.

Participants who engaged in an average of 14 minutes (range, 12-17 minutes) of VPA per day met the median CRF.

The researchers also conducted independent t tests to assess differences in VPA at different CRF thresholds.

Those in the highest quartile of VPA had CRF z scores 1.03 higher, compared with those in the lower quartiles.

Given that current PA guidelines involve a combination of moderate and vigorous PA that could be met by MPA with no VPA, the current findings have public health implications for improving CRF in adolescents, the researchers wrote.

Even with MPA as an option, most adolescents fail to meet the recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA, they said. “One possible reason is that this duration is quite long, requiring a daily time commitment that some may find difficult to maintain. A shorter target of 20 minutes might be easier to schedule daily and a focus on VPA would simplify messages about the intensity of activity that is likely to improve CRF.”

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from only two schools in the United Kingdom, which may limit generalizability, and future research would ideally include a more direct assessment of VO₂ max, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the large and diverse study population, including teens with a wide range of body mass index as well as CRF.

Future research is needed to test whether interventions based on a target of 20 minutes of VPA creates significant improvements in adolescent cardiometabolic health, the researchers concluded.
 

Any activity has value for sedentary teens

The current study suggests that counseling teens about physical activity may be less challenging for clinicians if optimal cardiorespiratory benefits can be reached with shorter bouts of activity, Michele LaBotz, MD, of Intermed Sports Medicine, South Portland, Maine, and Sarah Hoffman, DO, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results have two key implications for pediatricians, the authors said. First, “optimal CRF can be achieved with much shorter periods of activity than previously recommended.” Second, “current ‘moderate to vigorous’ PA recommendations may not be sufficient to improve CRF in adolescents, if achieved through moderate activity only.”

However, the editorialists emphasized that, although shorter periods of higher-intensity exercise reduce the time burden for teens and families, specific education is needed to explain the extra effort involved in exercising vigorously enough for cardiorespiratory benefits.

Patients can be counseled that activity is vigorous when they start to sweat, their face gets red, and they feel short of breath and unable to talk during activity,” they explained. These sensations may be new and uncomfortable for children and teens who have been quite sedentary or used to low-intensity activity. Dr. LaBotz and Dr. Hoffman advised pediatricians to counsel patients to build intensity gradually, with “exercise snacks,” that involve several minutes of activity that become more challenging over time.

“Exercise snacks can include anything that elevates the heart rate for a minute or more, such as running up and down the stairs a few times; chasing the dog around the backyard; or just putting on some music and dancing hard,” the editorialists wrote.

“Some exercise is better than none, and extrapolating from adult data, the biggest benefit likely occurs when we can help our most sedentary and least fit patients become a bit more active, even if it falls short of currently recommended levels,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to various researchers from the British Heart Foundation, the Elizabeth Casson Trust, the U.K. National Institute of Health Research, the Professor Nigel Groome Studentship scheme (Oxford Brookes University), and the U.K. Department of Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

This past weekend, because of a series of unfortunate events, I had to move a lot of furniture. This included the bookshelves in my home office. I began by taking books off the shelves to make the bookcase easier to move.

After blowing away a few pounds of dust, I found myself staring at tomes that were once the center of my life: Robbin’s “Pathological Basis of Disease,” Cecil’s “Essentials of Medicine,” Stryer’s “Biochemistry, Grant’s Method of Anatomy,” Stedman’s “Medical Dictionary,” and a few others. All of them more than 30 years old.

I piled the books up on a table as I moved the bookcase, thinking about them. I hadn’t opened any of them in at least 20 years, probably more.

When it was time to put them back, I stared at the pile. They’re big and heavy, qualities that we assume are good things in textbooks. Especially in medical school.

Books have heft. Their knowledge and supposed wisdom are measured by weight and size as you slowly turn the pages under a desk lamp. Not like today, where all the libraries of the world are accessible from a single lightweight iPad.

I remember carrying those books around, stuffed in a backpack draped over my left shoulder. In retrospect it’s amazing I didn’t develop a long thoracic nerve palsy during those years.

They were expensive. I mean, in 1989 dollars, they were all between $50 and $100. I long ago shredded my credit card statements from that era, but my spending for books was pretty high. Fortunately my dad stood behind me for a big chunk of this, and told me to get whatever I needed. Believe me, I know how lucky I am.

I looked at the books. We’d been through a lot together. Long nights at my apartment across the street from Creighton, reading and rereading them. The pages still marked with the yellow highlighter pen that never left my side back then. A younger version of myself traced these pages, committing things to memory that I now have no recollection of. (If you can still draw the Krebs cycle from memory you’re way ahead of me.)

Realistically, though, there was no reason to hold onto them anymore. I’m about two-thirds of the way through my career. If I haven’t opened my old medical textbooks in 20-25 years, the odds are that I’m not going to now.

Plus, they’re out of date. Basic anatomy knowledge hasn’t changed much, but most everything else has. I started med school in 1989, and if I’d been looking things up in 1959 textbooks then, I probably wouldn’t have gotten very far. When I need to look things up these days I go to UpToDate, or Epocrates, or other online sources or apps.

I carried the majority of the books out to the recycling can. (It took a few trips.)

Facing some now-empty space on my bookshelf, I put my next challenge there: A pile of 33-RPM records that I still can’t bring myself to get rid of.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This past weekend, because of a series of unfortunate events, I had to move a lot of furniture. This included the bookshelves in my home office. I began by taking books off the shelves to make the bookcase easier to move.

After blowing away a few pounds of dust, I found myself staring at tomes that were once the center of my life: Robbin’s “Pathological Basis of Disease,” Cecil’s “Essentials of Medicine,” Stryer’s “Biochemistry, Grant’s Method of Anatomy,” Stedman’s “Medical Dictionary,” and a few others. All of them more than 30 years old.

I piled the books up on a table as I moved the bookcase, thinking about them. I hadn’t opened any of them in at least 20 years, probably more.

When it was time to put them back, I stared at the pile. They’re big and heavy, qualities that we assume are good things in textbooks. Especially in medical school.

Books have heft. Their knowledge and supposed wisdom are measured by weight and size as you slowly turn the pages under a desk lamp. Not like today, where all the libraries of the world are accessible from a single lightweight iPad.

I remember carrying those books around, stuffed in a backpack draped over my left shoulder. In retrospect it’s amazing I didn’t develop a long thoracic nerve palsy during those years.

They were expensive. I mean, in 1989 dollars, they were all between $50 and $100. I long ago shredded my credit card statements from that era, but my spending for books was pretty high. Fortunately my dad stood behind me for a big chunk of this, and told me to get whatever I needed. Believe me, I know how lucky I am.

I looked at the books. We’d been through a lot together. Long nights at my apartment across the street from Creighton, reading and rereading them. The pages still marked with the yellow highlighter pen that never left my side back then. A younger version of myself traced these pages, committing things to memory that I now have no recollection of. (If you can still draw the Krebs cycle from memory you’re way ahead of me.)

Realistically, though, there was no reason to hold onto them anymore. I’m about two-thirds of the way through my career. If I haven’t opened my old medical textbooks in 20-25 years, the odds are that I’m not going to now.

Plus, they’re out of date. Basic anatomy knowledge hasn’t changed much, but most everything else has. I started med school in 1989, and if I’d been looking things up in 1959 textbooks then, I probably wouldn’t have gotten very far. When I need to look things up these days I go to UpToDate, or Epocrates, or other online sources or apps.

I carried the majority of the books out to the recycling can. (It took a few trips.)

Facing some now-empty space on my bookshelf, I put my next challenge there: A pile of 33-RPM records that I still can’t bring myself to get rid of.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This past weekend, because of a series of unfortunate events, I had to move a lot of furniture. This included the bookshelves in my home office. I began by taking books off the shelves to make the bookcase easier to move.

After blowing away a few pounds of dust, I found myself staring at tomes that were once the center of my life: Robbin’s “Pathological Basis of Disease,” Cecil’s “Essentials of Medicine,” Stryer’s “Biochemistry, Grant’s Method of Anatomy,” Stedman’s “Medical Dictionary,” and a few others. All of them more than 30 years old.

I piled the books up on a table as I moved the bookcase, thinking about them. I hadn’t opened any of them in at least 20 years, probably more.

When it was time to put them back, I stared at the pile. They’re big and heavy, qualities that we assume are good things in textbooks. Especially in medical school.

Books have heft. Their knowledge and supposed wisdom are measured by weight and size as you slowly turn the pages under a desk lamp. Not like today, where all the libraries of the world are accessible from a single lightweight iPad.

I remember carrying those books around, stuffed in a backpack draped over my left shoulder. In retrospect it’s amazing I didn’t develop a long thoracic nerve palsy during those years.

They were expensive. I mean, in 1989 dollars, they were all between $50 and $100. I long ago shredded my credit card statements from that era, but my spending for books was pretty high. Fortunately my dad stood behind me for a big chunk of this, and told me to get whatever I needed. Believe me, I know how lucky I am.

I looked at the books. We’d been through a lot together. Long nights at my apartment across the street from Creighton, reading and rereading them. The pages still marked with the yellow highlighter pen that never left my side back then. A younger version of myself traced these pages, committing things to memory that I now have no recollection of. (If you can still draw the Krebs cycle from memory you’re way ahead of me.)

Realistically, though, there was no reason to hold onto them anymore. I’m about two-thirds of the way through my career. If I haven’t opened my old medical textbooks in 20-25 years, the odds are that I’m not going to now.

Plus, they’re out of date. Basic anatomy knowledge hasn’t changed much, but most everything else has. I started med school in 1989, and if I’d been looking things up in 1959 textbooks then, I probably wouldn’t have gotten very far. When I need to look things up these days I go to UpToDate, or Epocrates, or other online sources or apps.

I carried the majority of the books out to the recycling can. (It took a few trips.)

Facing some now-empty space on my bookshelf, I put my next challenge there: A pile of 33-RPM records that I still can’t bring myself to get rid of.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may lower mortality for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from a large database of inpatients across the United States, use of ECT for those with resistant MDD was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who did not receive ECT.

This held true even after the researchers controlled for demographics and loss of function due to comorbid medical conditions.

“I think the risks of ECT are far less than the benefits in this population,” coinvestigator Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“My hope is that providers will not be afraid to refer appropriate cases for ECT. If meds and other therapeutics are not working, you should start discussing ECT as a second or third line,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Lower mortality

Dr. Youssef, a brain stimulation researcher who uses ECT in his clinical practice, said that in his experience, it is a highly effective therapy for resistant depression.

“I see great responses in patients who have tried everything else. Most of the time, it works very well, and results are very rewarding.”

For the study, the investigators used a large, national insurance claims database that included 949,394 adult inpatients with MDD across the United States from 2012 to 2014. The cohort represented over 4,000 hospitals across the country.

The investigators used logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for in-hospital all-cause mortality for the 25,535 MDD patients who were treated with ECT in comparison with 923,859 patients with MDD who were not treated with ECT.

Results showed that ECT use was significantly higher among older patients (mean age, 56.9 years), women (64%), and White patients (86.9%). In addition, patients in the ECT group were physically sicker than were their peers in the non-ECT group.

A higher proportion of patients in the ECT group in comparison with the non-ECT group had experienced major loss of physical function (37% vs. 5%, respectively) and extreme loss of physical function (63% vs. 0.2%).

“By loss of function, I mean the degree of impairment caused by medical disease,” said Dr. Youssef.

He added that patients with MDD are more likely to care less for their health and do things that are not good for their well-being, such as drinking alcohol or using drugs, and are less likely to adhere to prescribed medication regimens or seek medical attention for physical illness.

“Also, there is probably a biological component where depression, by dysregulation of the hypothalamus and pituitary regions of the brain, can increase the likelihood of physical illness or disease,” Dr. Youssef said.

After adjusting for demographics and extreme loss of function because of medical conditions, the investigators found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the ECT group (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.11; P < .001).

In-hospital mortality was numerically but not statistically significantly lower in the ECT group (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50; P < .47) when adjusted for demographics and major loss of function.

“While this was not statistically significant with marked loss of function, it is clinically important and meaningful. With extreme loss of function, the decrease in mortality was statistically significant,” Dr. Youssef noted.

Designations of extreme and major loss of function were derived from ICD codes.

“This is a complex grading system that takes into account how sick the patient is and includes medical disease severity and comorbidities assessed by the clinician,” he said.
 

A lifesaving treatment

Commenting on the study, Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Pat Rutherford Chair in Psychiatry, UT Houston Medical School, Texas, said, “These are interesting results in a very large national sample suggesting some potential benefits of ECT.

“For the most severely ill patients with major depression who do not respond to currently available medications, ECT is still the most efficacious treatment and indeed a lifesaving treatment modality for many patients,” said Dr. Soares, who was not part of the study.

He noted that ECT is not right for everyone, but “as administered these days, with careful patient selection, it is indeed a safe treatment that can save many lives,” Dr. Soares said.

Dr. Youssef reports a financial relationship with Mecta. Dr. Soares reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may lower mortality for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from a large database of inpatients across the United States, use of ECT for those with resistant MDD was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who did not receive ECT.

This held true even after the researchers controlled for demographics and loss of function due to comorbid medical conditions.

“I think the risks of ECT are far less than the benefits in this population,” coinvestigator Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“My hope is that providers will not be afraid to refer appropriate cases for ECT. If meds and other therapeutics are not working, you should start discussing ECT as a second or third line,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Lower mortality

Dr. Youssef, a brain stimulation researcher who uses ECT in his clinical practice, said that in his experience, it is a highly effective therapy for resistant depression.

“I see great responses in patients who have tried everything else. Most of the time, it works very well, and results are very rewarding.”

For the study, the investigators used a large, national insurance claims database that included 949,394 adult inpatients with MDD across the United States from 2012 to 2014. The cohort represented over 4,000 hospitals across the country.

The investigators used logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for in-hospital all-cause mortality for the 25,535 MDD patients who were treated with ECT in comparison with 923,859 patients with MDD who were not treated with ECT.

Results showed that ECT use was significantly higher among older patients (mean age, 56.9 years), women (64%), and White patients (86.9%). In addition, patients in the ECT group were physically sicker than were their peers in the non-ECT group.

A higher proportion of patients in the ECT group in comparison with the non-ECT group had experienced major loss of physical function (37% vs. 5%, respectively) and extreme loss of physical function (63% vs. 0.2%).

“By loss of function, I mean the degree of impairment caused by medical disease,” said Dr. Youssef.

He added that patients with MDD are more likely to care less for their health and do things that are not good for their well-being, such as drinking alcohol or using drugs, and are less likely to adhere to prescribed medication regimens or seek medical attention for physical illness.

“Also, there is probably a biological component where depression, by dysregulation of the hypothalamus and pituitary regions of the brain, can increase the likelihood of physical illness or disease,” Dr. Youssef said.

After adjusting for demographics and extreme loss of function because of medical conditions, the investigators found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the ECT group (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.11; P < .001).

In-hospital mortality was numerically but not statistically significantly lower in the ECT group (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50; P < .47) when adjusted for demographics and major loss of function.

“While this was not statistically significant with marked loss of function, it is clinically important and meaningful. With extreme loss of function, the decrease in mortality was statistically significant,” Dr. Youssef noted.

Designations of extreme and major loss of function were derived from ICD codes.

“This is a complex grading system that takes into account how sick the patient is and includes medical disease severity and comorbidities assessed by the clinician,” he said.
 

A lifesaving treatment

Commenting on the study, Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Pat Rutherford Chair in Psychiatry, UT Houston Medical School, Texas, said, “These are interesting results in a very large national sample suggesting some potential benefits of ECT.

“For the most severely ill patients with major depression who do not respond to currently available medications, ECT is still the most efficacious treatment and indeed a lifesaving treatment modality for many patients,” said Dr. Soares, who was not part of the study.

He noted that ECT is not right for everyone, but “as administered these days, with careful patient selection, it is indeed a safe treatment that can save many lives,” Dr. Soares said.

Dr. Youssef reports a financial relationship with Mecta. Dr. Soares reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) may lower mortality for patients with treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

In an analysis of data from a large database of inpatients across the United States, use of ECT for those with resistant MDD was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared with those who did not receive ECT.

This held true even after the researchers controlled for demographics and loss of function due to comorbid medical conditions.

“I think the risks of ECT are far less than the benefits in this population,” coinvestigator Nagy A. Youssef, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and director of clinical research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, told this news organization.

“My hope is that providers will not be afraid to refer appropriate cases for ECT. If meds and other therapeutics are not working, you should start discussing ECT as a second or third line,” he said.

The findings were presented at the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology annual meeting.
 

Lower mortality

Dr. Youssef, a brain stimulation researcher who uses ECT in his clinical practice, said that in his experience, it is a highly effective therapy for resistant depression.

“I see great responses in patients who have tried everything else. Most of the time, it works very well, and results are very rewarding.”

For the study, the investigators used a large, national insurance claims database that included 949,394 adult inpatients with MDD across the United States from 2012 to 2014. The cohort represented over 4,000 hospitals across the country.

The investigators used logistic regression to determine the odds ratio for in-hospital all-cause mortality for the 25,535 MDD patients who were treated with ECT in comparison with 923,859 patients with MDD who were not treated with ECT.

Results showed that ECT use was significantly higher among older patients (mean age, 56.9 years), women (64%), and White patients (86.9%). In addition, patients in the ECT group were physically sicker than were their peers in the non-ECT group.

A higher proportion of patients in the ECT group in comparison with the non-ECT group had experienced major loss of physical function (37% vs. 5%, respectively) and extreme loss of physical function (63% vs. 0.2%).

“By loss of function, I mean the degree of impairment caused by medical disease,” said Dr. Youssef.

He added that patients with MDD are more likely to care less for their health and do things that are not good for their well-being, such as drinking alcohol or using drugs, and are less likely to adhere to prescribed medication regimens or seek medical attention for physical illness.

“Also, there is probably a biological component where depression, by dysregulation of the hypothalamus and pituitary regions of the brain, can increase the likelihood of physical illness or disease,” Dr. Youssef said.

After adjusting for demographics and extreme loss of function because of medical conditions, the investigators found that in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the ECT group (odds ratio [OR], 0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.11; P < .001).

In-hospital mortality was numerically but not statistically significantly lower in the ECT group (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.41-1.50; P < .47) when adjusted for demographics and major loss of function.

“While this was not statistically significant with marked loss of function, it is clinically important and meaningful. With extreme loss of function, the decrease in mortality was statistically significant,” Dr. Youssef noted.

Designations of extreme and major loss of function were derived from ICD codes.

“This is a complex grading system that takes into account how sick the patient is and includes medical disease severity and comorbidities assessed by the clinician,” he said.
 

A lifesaving treatment

Commenting on the study, Jair C. Soares, MD, PhD, professor and chair, Pat Rutherford Chair in Psychiatry, UT Houston Medical School, Texas, said, “These are interesting results in a very large national sample suggesting some potential benefits of ECT.

“For the most severely ill patients with major depression who do not respond to currently available medications, ECT is still the most efficacious treatment and indeed a lifesaving treatment modality for many patients,” said Dr. Soares, who was not part of the study.

He noted that ECT is not right for everyone, but “as administered these days, with careful patient selection, it is indeed a safe treatment that can save many lives,” Dr. Soares said.

Dr. Youssef reports a financial relationship with Mecta. Dr. Soares reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

NEW ORLEANS – The case continues to grow for prioritizing a sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes, as real-world evidence of benefit and safety accumulates on top of the data from randomized trials that first established this class as a management pillar.

Another important effect of these agents gaining increasing currency, on top of their well-established benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes for preventing acute heart failure exacerbations and slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, is that they cut the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib). That effect was confirmed in an analysis of data from about 300,000 U.S. patients included in recent Medicare records, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, reported at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

But despite documentation like this, real-world evidence also continues to show limited uptake of SGLT2 inhibitors in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes. Records from more than 1.3 million patients with type 2 diabetes managed in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System during 2019 or 2022 documented that just 10% of these patients received an agent from this class, even though all were eligible to receive it, according to findings in a separate report at the meeting.

The AFib analysis analyzed two sets of propensity score–matched Medicare patients during 2013-2018 aged 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes and no history of AFib. One analysis focused on 80,475 matched patients who started on treatment with either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, and a second on 74,868 matched patients who began either an SGTL2 inhibitor or a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP4) inhibitor. In both analyses, matching involved more than 130 variables. In both pair sets, patients at baseline averaged about 72 years old, nearly two-thirds were women, about 8%-9% had heart failure, 77%-80% were on metformin, and 20%-25% were using insulin.

The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of hospitalization for AFib, which occurred a significant 18% less often in the patients who started on an SGLT2, compared with those who started a DPP4 inhibitor during median follow-up of 6.7 months, and a significant 10% less often, compared with those starting a GLP-1 receptor agonist during a median follow-up of 6.0 months, Elisabetta Patorno, MD, DrPH, reported at the meeting. This worked out to 3.7 fewer hospitalizations for AFib per 1,000 patient-years of follow-up among the people who received an SGLT2 inhibitor, compared with a DPP4 inhibitor, and a decrease of 1.8 hospitalizations/1,000 patient-years when compared against patients in a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Two secondary outcomes showed significantly fewer episodes of newly diagnosed AFib, and significantly fewer patients initiating AFib treatment among those who received an SGLT2 inhibitor relative to the comparator groups. In addition, these associations were consistent across subgroup analyses that divided patients by their age, sex, history of heart failure, and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
 

AFib effects add to benefits

The findings “suggest that initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor may be beneficial in older adults with type 2 diabetes who are at risk for AFib,” said Dr. Patorno, a researcher in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “These new findings on AFib may be helpful when weighing the potential risks and benefits of various glucose-lowering drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes.”

This new evidence follows several prior reports from other research groups of data supporting an AFib benefit from SGLT2 inhibitors. The earlier reports include a post hoc analysis of more than 17,000 patients enrolled in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 cardiovascular outcome trial of dapagliflozin (Farxiga), which showed a 19% relative decrease in the rate of incident AFib or atrial flutter events during a median 4.2 year follow-up.

Other prior reports that found a reduced incidence of AFib events linked with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment include a 2020 meta-analysis based on data from more than 38,000 patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in any of 16 randomized, controlled trials, which found a 24% relative risk reduction. And an as-yet unpublished report from researchers at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and their associates presented in November 2021 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association that documented a significant 24% relative risk reduction in incident AFib events linked to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment in a prospective study of 13,890 patients at several hospitals in Israel or the United States.
 

Evidence ‘convincing’ in totality

The accumulated evidence for a reduced incidence of AFib when patients were on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor are “convincing because it’s real world data that complements what we know from clinical trials,” commented Silvio E. Inzucchi, MD, professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Medicine Diabetes Center in New Haven, Conn., who was not involved with the study.

“If these drugs reduce heart failure, they may also reduce AFib. Heart failure patients easily slip into AFib,” he noted in an interview, but added that “I don’t think this explains all cases” of the reduced AFib incidence.

Dr. Patorno offered a few other possible mechanisms for the observed effect. The class may work by reducing blood pressure, weight, inflammation, and oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, atrial remodeling, and AFib susceptibility. These agents are also known to cause natriuresis and diuresis, which could reduce atrial dilation, a mechanism that again relates the AFib effect to the better documented reduction in acute heart failure exacerbations.

“With the diuretic effect, we’d expect less overload at the atrium and less dilation, and the same mechanism would reduce heart failure,” she said in an interview.

“If you reduce preload and afterload you may reduce stress on the ventricle and reduce atrial stretch, and that might have a significant effect on atrial arrhythmia,” agreed Dr. Inzucchi.
 

EMPRISE produces more real-world evidence

A pair of additional reports at the meeting that Dr. Patorno coauthored provided real-world evidence supporting the dramatic heart failure benefit of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with alternative drug classes. The EMPRISE study used data from the Medicare, Optum Clinformatics, and MarketScan databases during the period from August 2014, when empagliflozin became available, to September 2019. The study used more than 140 variables to match patients treated with either empagliflozin or a comparator agent.

The results showed that, in an analysis of more than 130,000 matched pairs, treatment with empagliflozin was linked to a significant 30% reduction in the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with patients treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Analysis of more than 116,000 matched pairs of patients showed that treatment with empagliflozin linked with a significant 29%-50% reduced rate of hospitalization for heart failure, compared with matched patients treated with a DPP4 inhibitor.

These findings “add to the pool of information” on the efficacy of agents from the SGLT2 inhibitor class, Dr. Patorno said in an interview. “We wanted to look at the full range of patients with type 2 diabetes who we see in practice,” rather than the more selected group of patients enrolled in randomized trials.

SGLT2 inhibitor use lags even when cost isn’t an issue

Despite all the accumulated evidence for efficacy and safety of the class, usage remains low, Julio A. Lamprea-Montealegre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, reported in a separate talk at the meeting. The study he presented examined records for 1,319,500 adults with type 2 diabetes managed in the VA Healthcare System during 2019 and 2020. Despite being in a system that “removes the influence of cost,” just 10% of these patients received treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor, and 7% received treatment with a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

Notably, his analysis further showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was especially depressed among patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73m². In this subgroup, usage of a drug from this class was at two-thirds of the rate, compared with patients with an eGFR of at least 90 mL/min per 1.73m2. His findings also documented lower rates of use in patients with higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre called this a “treatment paradox,” in which patients likely to get the most benefit from an SGLT2 inhibitor were also less likely to actually receive it.

While his findings from the VA System suggest that drug cost is not the only factor driving underuse, the high price set for the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs that all currently remain on U.S. patents is widely considered an important factor.

“There is a big problem of affordability,” said Dr. Patorno.

“SGLT2 inhibitors should probably be first-line therapy” for many patients with type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Inzucchi. “The only thing holding it back is cost,” a situation that he hopes will dramatically shift once agents from this class become generic and have substantially lower price tags.

The EMPRISE study received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Patorno had no relevant commercial disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Lamprea-Montealegre had received research funding from Bayer.

Joining Gastroenterology as an editorial fellow is an invaluable experience for the future scientific career. When I joined the fellowship, my main objectives were to learn important aspects about scientific publishing, while improving my editorial and writing skills. Importantly, participating in the fellowship would allow me to determine fields in gastroenterology and hepatology that need more intensive research, evaluate and review manuscripts submitted to a high-impact journal, learn which aspects are important for manuscripts to be considered for publication, and learn how to prepare concise summaries to share with readers. As an editorial fellow, I would not only work with experts on manuscript review and editing, but also be mentored by experts in the field to prepare for a career in scientific publishing.

The application process is easy and straightforward. A curriculum vitae, motivation letter, and conflict of interest form are needed to be considered for the position. Furthermore, a letter of recommendation has to be provided from senior faculty. For the latter, it is beneficial to have worked with someone who is currently active in scientific publishing.

After joining the editorial board, fellows are assigned to associate editors based on their previous experience. Fellows are expected to peer-review manuscripts and discuss their reviews with the associate editors during a brief call or by email, where it is also determined whether additional feedback from the board of editors is needed to move manuscripts forward. If so, fellows are given the opportunity to present manuscripts they reviewed to the editorial board and prepare the decision letter with comments to the authors and editors. This experience teaches which qualities manuscripts need to fulfill to be considered for publication, and how to communicate decisions to authors. During the meetings with the editorial board, fellows are also encouraged to provide feedback for additional manuscripts discussed.

Additionally, fellows have the chance to work on the “Covering the Cover” section of the journal under close mentorship of the responsible editors. Here, they learn to draft short synopses of submitted manuscripts that should be highlighted in the respective sections to give readers a brief overview of important pieces of research with potential clinical applicability. This experience teaches how to write concisely and rephrase the main message of manuscripts without overstating findings and conclusions. Additionally, fellows are invited to write commentaries on recent articles published in other journals and highlight these to Gastroenterology’s readership. This experience teaches how to critically comment on published literature and point out its strengths and limitations. Overall, these learning experiences improve not only editorial and writing skills, but also knowledge in the respective areas of research.

Finally, fellows have the opportunity to write a commentary about a topic of their choice. This experience allows fellows to deepen their expertise in an area of research on an emerging topic they would like to highlight to their readers. Since this type of article is peer reviewed, reviewers’ comments help identify weaknesses of the initially submitted manuscript and increase the awareness about factors that need to be addressed to finally provide a high-quality article that is of value to Gastroenterology’s readership.

Concluding, being an editorial fellow for Gastroenterology is an extremely valuable experience. From an editorial aspect, fellows learn to review, summarize, and comment on submitted manuscripts, as well as which factors need to be addressed by manuscripts to be considered for publication to a high-impact journal. Additionally, fellows network with leaders in the field and expand their knowledge on topics they had not worked on previously. Overall, the fellowship helps improve editorial and writing skills, while staying current in the literature, a skill set that can be applied broadly in the future medical and scientific career.

Dr. Kefalakes is a clinical fellow and research group leader in the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School. She has nothing to declare.

Joining Gastroenterology as an editorial fellow is an invaluable experience for the future scientific career. When I joined the fellowship, my main objectives were to learn important aspects about scientific publishing, while improving my editorial and writing skills. Importantly, participating in the fellowship would allow me to determine fields in gastroenterology and hepatology that need more intensive research, evaluate and review manuscripts submitted to a high-impact journal, learn which aspects are important for manuscripts to be considered for publication, and learn how to prepare concise summaries to share with readers. As an editorial fellow, I would not only work with experts on manuscript review and editing, but also be mentored by experts in the field to prepare for a career in scientific publishing.

The application process is easy and straightforward. A curriculum vitae, motivation letter, and conflict of interest form are needed to be considered for the position. Furthermore, a letter of recommendation has to be provided from senior faculty. For the latter, it is beneficial to have worked with someone who is currently active in scientific publishing.

After joining the editorial board, fellows are assigned to associate editors based on their previous experience. Fellows are expected to peer-review manuscripts and discuss their reviews with the associate editors during a brief call or by email, where it is also determined whether additional feedback from the board of editors is needed to move manuscripts forward. If so, fellows are given the opportunity to present manuscripts they reviewed to the editorial board and prepare the decision letter with comments to the authors and editors. This experience teaches which qualities manuscripts need to fulfill to be considered for publication, and how to communicate decisions to authors. During the meetings with the editorial board, fellows are also encouraged to provide feedback for additional manuscripts discussed.

Additionally, fellows have the chance to work on the “Covering the Cover” section of the journal under close mentorship of the responsible editors. Here, they learn to draft short synopses of submitted manuscripts that should be highlighted in the respective sections to give readers a brief overview of important pieces of research with potential clinical applicability. This experience teaches how to write concisely and rephrase the main message of manuscripts without overstating findings and conclusions. Additionally, fellows are invited to write commentaries on recent articles published in other journals and highlight these to Gastroenterology’s readership. This experience teaches how to critically comment on published literature and point out its strengths and limitations. Overall, these learning experiences improve not only editorial and writing skills, but also knowledge in the respective areas of research.

Finally, fellows have the opportunity to write a commentary about a topic of their choice. This experience allows fellows to deepen their expertise in an area of research on an emerging topic they would like to highlight to their readers. Since this type of article is peer reviewed, reviewers’ comments help identify weaknesses of the initially submitted manuscript and increase the awareness about factors that need to be addressed to finally provide a high-quality article that is of value to Gastroenterology’s readership.

Concluding, being an editorial fellow for Gastroenterology is an extremely valuable experience. From an editorial aspect, fellows learn to review, summarize, and comment on submitted manuscripts, as well as which factors need to be addressed by manuscripts to be considered for publication to a high-impact journal. Additionally, fellows network with leaders in the field and expand their knowledge on topics they had not worked on previously. Overall, the fellowship helps improve editorial and writing skills, while staying current in the literature, a skill set that can be applied broadly in the future medical and scientific career.

Dr. Kefalakes is a clinical fellow and research group leader in the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School. She has nothing to declare.

Joining Gastroenterology as an editorial fellow is an invaluable experience for the future scientific career. When I joined the fellowship, my main objectives were to learn important aspects about scientific publishing, while improving my editorial and writing skills. Importantly, participating in the fellowship would allow me to determine fields in gastroenterology and hepatology that need more intensive research, evaluate and review manuscripts submitted to a high-impact journal, learn which aspects are important for manuscripts to be considered for publication, and learn how to prepare concise summaries to share with readers. As an editorial fellow, I would not only work with experts on manuscript review and editing, but also be mentored by experts in the field to prepare for a career in scientific publishing.

The application process is easy and straightforward. A curriculum vitae, motivation letter, and conflict of interest form are needed to be considered for the position. Furthermore, a letter of recommendation has to be provided from senior faculty. For the latter, it is beneficial to have worked with someone who is currently active in scientific publishing.

After joining the editorial board, fellows are assigned to associate editors based on their previous experience. Fellows are expected to peer-review manuscripts and discuss their reviews with the associate editors during a brief call or by email, where it is also determined whether additional feedback from the board of editors is needed to move manuscripts forward. If so, fellows are given the opportunity to present manuscripts they reviewed to the editorial board and prepare the decision letter with comments to the authors and editors. This experience teaches which qualities manuscripts need to fulfill to be considered for publication, and how to communicate decisions to authors. During the meetings with the editorial board, fellows are also encouraged to provide feedback for additional manuscripts discussed.

Additionally, fellows have the chance to work on the “Covering the Cover” section of the journal under close mentorship of the responsible editors. Here, they learn to draft short synopses of submitted manuscripts that should be highlighted in the respective sections to give readers a brief overview of important pieces of research with potential clinical applicability. This experience teaches how to write concisely and rephrase the main message of manuscripts without overstating findings and conclusions. Additionally, fellows are invited to write commentaries on recent articles published in other journals and highlight these to Gastroenterology’s readership. This experience teaches how to critically comment on published literature and point out its strengths and limitations. Overall, these learning experiences improve not only editorial and writing skills, but also knowledge in the respective areas of research.

Finally, fellows have the opportunity to write a commentary about a topic of their choice. This experience allows fellows to deepen their expertise in an area of research on an emerging topic they would like to highlight to their readers. Since this type of article is peer reviewed, reviewers’ comments help identify weaknesses of the initially submitted manuscript and increase the awareness about factors that need to be addressed to finally provide a high-quality article that is of value to Gastroenterology’s readership.

Concluding, being an editorial fellow for Gastroenterology is an extremely valuable experience. From an editorial aspect, fellows learn to review, summarize, and comment on submitted manuscripts, as well as which factors need to be addressed by manuscripts to be considered for publication to a high-impact journal. Additionally, fellows network with leaders in the field and expand their knowledge on topics they had not worked on previously. Overall, the fellowship helps improve editorial and writing skills, while staying current in the literature, a skill set that can be applied broadly in the future medical and scientific career.

Dr. Kefalakes is a clinical fellow and research group leader in the department of gastroenterology, hepatology, and endocrinology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School. She has nothing to declare.

Herpes zoster does not appear to increase dementia risk – on the contrary, the viral infection may offer some protection, a large population-based study suggests.

“We were surprised by these results [and] the reasons for the decreased risk are unclear,” study author Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, MD, PhD, with Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

Herpes zoster (HZ) is an acute, cutaneous viral infection caused by the reactivation of varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Previous population-based studies have reported both decreased and increased risks of dementia after having HZ.

It’s thought that HZ may contribute to the development of dementia through neuroinflammation, cerebral vasculopathy, or direct neural damage, but epidemiologic evidence is limited.

To investigate further, Dr. Schmidt and colleagues used Danish medical registries to identify 247,305 people who had visited a hospital for HZ or were prescribed antiviral medication for HZ over a 20-year period and matched them to 1,235,890 people who did not have HZ. For both cohorts, the median age was 64 years, and 61% were women.

Dementia was diagnosed in 9.7% of zoster patients and 10.3% of matched control persons during up to 21 years of follow-up.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectation, HZ was associated with a small (7%) decreased relative risk of all-cause dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95).

There was no increased long-term risk of dementia in subgroup analyses, except possibly among those with HZ that involved the central nervous system (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.78-4.80), which has been shown before.

However, the population attributable fraction of dementia caused by this rare complication is low (< 1%), suggesting that universal vaccination against VZV in the elderly has limited potential to reduce dementia risk, the investigators noted.

Nonetheless, Dr. Schmidt said shingles vaccination should be encouraged in older people because it can prevent complications from the disease.

The research team admitted that the slightly decreased long-term risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, was “unexpected.” The reasons for this decreased risk are unclear, they say, and could be explained by missed diagnoses of shingles in people with undiagnosed dementia.

They were not able to examine whether antiviral treatment modifies the association between HZ and dementia and said that this topic merits further research.

The study was supported by the Edel and Wilhelm Daubenmerkls Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Herpes zoster does not appear to increase dementia risk – on the contrary, the viral infection may offer some protection, a large population-based study suggests.

“We were surprised by these results [and] the reasons for the decreased risk are unclear,” study author Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, MD, PhD, with Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

Herpes zoster (HZ) is an acute, cutaneous viral infection caused by the reactivation of varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Previous population-based studies have reported both decreased and increased risks of dementia after having HZ.

It’s thought that HZ may contribute to the development of dementia through neuroinflammation, cerebral vasculopathy, or direct neural damage, but epidemiologic evidence is limited.

To investigate further, Dr. Schmidt and colleagues used Danish medical registries to identify 247,305 people who had visited a hospital for HZ or were prescribed antiviral medication for HZ over a 20-year period and matched them to 1,235,890 people who did not have HZ. For both cohorts, the median age was 64 years, and 61% were women.

Dementia was diagnosed in 9.7% of zoster patients and 10.3% of matched control persons during up to 21 years of follow-up.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectation, HZ was associated with a small (7%) decreased relative risk of all-cause dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95).

There was no increased long-term risk of dementia in subgroup analyses, except possibly among those with HZ that involved the central nervous system (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.78-4.80), which has been shown before.

However, the population attributable fraction of dementia caused by this rare complication is low (< 1%), suggesting that universal vaccination against VZV in the elderly has limited potential to reduce dementia risk, the investigators noted.

Nonetheless, Dr. Schmidt said shingles vaccination should be encouraged in older people because it can prevent complications from the disease.

The research team admitted that the slightly decreased long-term risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, was “unexpected.” The reasons for this decreased risk are unclear, they say, and could be explained by missed diagnoses of shingles in people with undiagnosed dementia.

They were not able to examine whether antiviral treatment modifies the association between HZ and dementia and said that this topic merits further research.

The study was supported by the Edel and Wilhelm Daubenmerkls Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Herpes zoster does not appear to increase dementia risk – on the contrary, the viral infection may offer some protection, a large population-based study suggests.

“We were surprised by these results [and] the reasons for the decreased risk are unclear,” study author Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, MD, PhD, with Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

Herpes zoster (HZ) is an acute, cutaneous viral infection caused by the reactivation of varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Previous population-based studies have reported both decreased and increased risks of dementia after having HZ.

It’s thought that HZ may contribute to the development of dementia through neuroinflammation, cerebral vasculopathy, or direct neural damage, but epidemiologic evidence is limited.

To investigate further, Dr. Schmidt and colleagues used Danish medical registries to identify 247,305 people who had visited a hospital for HZ or were prescribed antiviral medication for HZ over a 20-year period and matched them to 1,235,890 people who did not have HZ. For both cohorts, the median age was 64 years, and 61% were women.

Dementia was diagnosed in 9.7% of zoster patients and 10.3% of matched control persons during up to 21 years of follow-up.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectation, HZ was associated with a small (7%) decreased relative risk of all-cause dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95).

There was no increased long-term risk of dementia in subgroup analyses, except possibly among those with HZ that involved the central nervous system (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.78-4.80), which has been shown before.

However, the population attributable fraction of dementia caused by this rare complication is low (< 1%), suggesting that universal vaccination against VZV in the elderly has limited potential to reduce dementia risk, the investigators noted.

Nonetheless, Dr. Schmidt said shingles vaccination should be encouraged in older people because it can prevent complications from the disease.

The research team admitted that the slightly decreased long-term risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, was “unexpected.” The reasons for this decreased risk are unclear, they say, and could be explained by missed diagnoses of shingles in people with undiagnosed dementia.

They were not able to examine whether antiviral treatment modifies the association between HZ and dementia and said that this topic merits further research.

The study was supported by the Edel and Wilhelm Daubenmerkls Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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